Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967 that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Mauritius Independence Act, 1968.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

EPPING FOREST (WATERWORKS CORNER) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Conservators of Epping Forest to grant to the Minister of Transport lands for road purposes and to acquire

land in exchange, it is expedient to authorize the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required or authorized by that Act to be paid by the Minister of Transport.—[Mr. Swingler.]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid

Mr. William Price: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will list the countries which will receive aid in 1968; and the amounts in each case.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): The Estimates for Overseas Aid (Bilateral) will when it is published shortly show amounts of aid for specific countries in cases where those amounts have been settled. Further information will be made available as subsequent allocations are determined.

Mr. Price: What can the Minister do to combate the widespread prejudice and ignorance about overseas aid, much of it fostered by hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Prentice: All of us who believe that the aid programme is a proper and necessary part of our policy ought to do everything that we can to speak, write and argue in favour of it in every way possible.

Sir E. Bullus: What is the global total likely to be?

Mr. Prentice: The basic aid programme will be £205 million. There will be certain additional items. I have described those in answer to previous Questions. The total of the additional items cannot be announced, because some are still being negotiated.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what criteria are taken into account before it is decided to give Government aid to a foreign country.

Mr. Prentice: The main criteria are the needs of the countries concerned and their capacity to make effective use of aid. While the main motive is to raise the


living standards of the developing countries, we recognise that donors and recipients share mutual benefits, e.g., by the promotion of trade.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: While accepting the need for overseas aid, would the Minister not think that one of the criteria and conditions which we should impose is that of friendship?

Mr. Prentice: That would need closer definition. Clearly, political relationships play a part in determining the pattern. If a country breaks off diplomatic relations with us, that has an effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should turn aid on and off like a tap because of temporary difficulties.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will name the countries now in receipt of British aid which have no normal diplomatic relations with Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Prentice: Tanzania is the only country receiving significant assistance though we are also continuing to assist four trainees from Syria.

Mr. Costain: Has the Minister any policy on this matter? Does he also include countries which have defaulted on repayment of loans to us under this heading?

Mr. Prentice: There are some countries in the latter category. I cannot give details without notice. I answered a Question on this point a few weeks ago. Most countries in that category would be receiving technical assistance only, and the sums would not be very large.

Mr. James Johnson: Will the Minister look at the other side of the medal where, as in the case of Somalia, we have exchanged ambassadors in the last week or two after five years in the wilderness? Is there not a case for sympathetic consideration concerning Somalia? I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind.

Mr. Prentice: I will bear it in mind. I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that the present financial limits on the aid programme do not leave much room for manœuvre.

Private Capital Investment

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what volume of private capital was invested in developing countries and multilateral agencies during

1966; what percentage change this represents from the corresponding figures in 1965; and what is the expected figure for 1967.

Mr. Prentice: The estimated value in 1965 was £148 million. For 1966 a provisional estimate of £133 million is available. Both these figures are liable to substantial revision and it is too early to say whether the difference of 10 per cent. between them reflects the true position. No information for 1967 is yet available.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the widespread and well founded belief that the transfer of resources to developing countries is far better entrusted to private than to public agencies, is it not to be regretted that even the tentative figures which the right hon. Gentleman is able to present to the House show such a sad decline?

Mr. Prentice: Developing countries need a flow of both official aid and private investment. Neither one can do the total job. As for the figures, the hon. Gentleman might like to know that the provisional estimate for 1965 proved to be wrong. The final figure was 50 per cent. higher than the provisional one. So it is really too early to draw conclusions from the figures which I gave.

Mr. Braine: Would the Minister not agree that the Government's general policy of inhibiting additional investment overseas is not in the best interests of the developing countries?

Mr. Prentice: It is not the Government's policy to inhibit private investment in developing countries.

International Development Association

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development when he expects to make an announcement about the British contribution to the International Development Association.

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether he will state the Government's policy in regard to the new proposals for the replenishment of the funds of the International Development Association made by the President of the World Bank on 18th January.

Mr. Prentice: Subject to Parliamentary approval, Her Majesty's Government are


prepared to contribute £21·6 million per annum to a replenishment at a level of $400 million per annum over three years as proposed by the President of the World Bank, provided other contributors also agree. This represents an increase in resources of 60 per cent. over the last replenishment, with Britain's share in dollar terms remaining at 12·96 per cent.

Mr. Hooley: Will the Minister accept that this is welcome news? Can he say whether he has any plans for a personal meeting with the new President of the World Bank?

Mr. Prentice: Not at this stage, but I hope that a meeting will be possible before very long.

Mr. Braine: We on this side welcome the Government's decision. But bearing in mind that hitherto this country has gained substantially from the aid that has gone through the I.D.A, have the Government yet made up their mind about the proposals for giving the Americans balance of payments protection in respect of their contribution to the I.D.A.?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. We are willing to enter into special arrangements with I.D.A. and other contributors, providing there is general agreement, to enable the United States to postpone payments due to them, or at least to limit their demand to the amount of procurement in the United States, as long as other funds are still available. This would have the effect in certain cases of postponing their payments while other countries pay first. It would not alter their final liability in the three years' period.

Mr. Judd: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that for every £ we contribute to I.D.A. we still get 30s. worth of orders?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. I think that is the approximate figure. Therefore, it is in our interests, as well as those of the developing countries, that the activities of the I.D.A. should be expanded. The 60 per cent. expansion to which I referred is welcome. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government would have preferred to see a larger expansion still, and we were prepared to go to a doubling of the existing level.

World Food Programme

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what will be the value of the British contribution to the world food programme in 1968; and how this compares with the contribution in 1967.

Mr. Prentice: The disbursements to the World Food Programme in 1967 and 1968 are not separate contributions but form part of a pledge of $6·2 million covering the whole of the three year period, 1966–68. Disbursements in any one of the three years are not comparable since they reflect the rate at which the World Food Programme is able to take up the total pledge. The disbursements in 1967 totalled £410,000; in 1968 they are expected to be £1·2 million.

Mr. Hooley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is having any discussions with the Minister of Agriculture to determine in what way we could contribute to the food programme without putting any stress on our own balance of payments?

Mr. Prentice: My Department keeps in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture about the nature of our pledge. Half of our pledge is in commodities, and those that we offered are dried eggs, dried milk and canned fish. These commodities represent the kind of things that we can offer with the least strain to ourselves, as well as being useful in terms of the needs of the programme.

Sir C. Osborne: As world population is rising much faster than world production of food, can the Minister say what steps have been taken internationally to reduce the growth in world population and to increase world food supplies?

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the World Food Programme is an official one and only part of the total effort being made. Concerning population control, it is clear that increasing attention is being paid to that by the developing countries, and in various ways countries like our own are able to help to a great extent. Certainly we want to do more than we are doing and we are making it clear to many countries concerned.

Volunteer Programme

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the number of non-graduates supported by the Government with the current British volunteer programme.

Mr. Prentice: The provisional total is 936. Of these 552 are people with higher qualifications and 384 are school leavers.

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are certain useful jobs of work which can be done by people with ordinary manual skills provided they have had some special training? Will he say what discussions he has had with the trade unions and other organisations that might be able to help in this work?

Mr. Prentice: Yes. I am very keen that people from industry should play a larger part in this programme than has been the case so far. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had meetings with employers' organisations and trade union leaders during last year about this matter and we are trying in various ways to follow it up.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any increase in this figure over the last year or two and does he share the view that this is an important part of the work that needs to be done?

Mr. Prentice: The total number of volunteers in 1967–68 is 1,540. That unfortunately is lower than the figure for the previous year, though higher than any preceding year. The total for 1968–69 is 1,950, and the Government will do all they can to help the voluntary bodies in reaching this target

Technical Assistance Programme

Mr. Gardner: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if, when examining the effect of devaluation on overseas aid, he will give priority to the technical assistance programme.

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. Technical assistance accounts for nearly one fifth of our aid programme this year and the proportion is likely to be higher next year.

Mr. Gardner: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the effects of devaluation are taken into account the technical assistance programme will not have to suffer?

Mr. Prentice: We have already announced that we are making adjustments to the salaries and allowances of technical assistance personnel serving in countries which have not devalued. I do not think it will be possible to increase the total size of our technical assistance provision next year, but bearing in mind that the whole programme takes the effects of devaluation, the proportion spent on technical assistance will be somewhat larger.

Zambia

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the aid proposed for Zambia.

Mr. Pretice: Development aid for which my Ministry is responsible is expected to amount to about £4·9 million in 1967–68 and £4·0 million in 1968–69. These figures do not include contingency aid related to the effects of the illegal declaration of independence, which is administered by the Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Wall: Can the Minister say whether the £15 million already voted has been used? Does he agree that it would save a lot of money both here and in Zambia if the Government came to an agreement with Rhodesia?

Mr. Prentice: I think that both parts of that question are for the Commonwealth Secretary. The first part about the £15 million relates to contingency aid which, as I said in my original reply, is not administered by my Department.

Mr. Strauss: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in deciding the aid to Zambia account is taken of the enormous financial bonus accruing to that country as a result of the long-sustained steep rise in copper prices over the last six months?

Mr. Prentice: Concerning development aid administered by my Department, the main emphasis in future will be on technical assistance, because Zambia is still poor in terms of skilled personnel, although from the capital point of view it has been helped by the developments to which my right hon. Friend referred.

Mauritius (Financial Talks)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a statement on the financial talks with the Government of Mauritius.

Mr. Prentice: We are expecting to hold financial talks with the Mauritius Government in the latter part of March. Their purpose will be to discuss British development aid to Mauritius in the Mauritius financial year 1968–69.

Mr. Wall: Is it not unprecedented for a country not to know the development aid that it will get for the next three years before it becomes independent? Is not this an entirely new principle which has never been applied to any other country becoming independent?

Mr. Prentice: No. I am a fairly new Minister, but I think the procedure here has been followed before and is being followed in other cases currently.

Mr. Braine: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must wait until I call him. Mr. Braine.

Mr. Braine: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman be a bit more forthcoming? He referred to development aid in the future. I understand that Mauritius is already getting budgetary aid. Do the talks to which the right hon. Gentleman referred cover the question of budgetary aid and when will these talks be completed?

Mr. Prentice: The talks will take place in the latter part of March. I cannot say for how long they will last. Clearly it will be in the interests of both parties to complete them expeditiously. The Mauritius Government have already undertaken to balance their recurrent budget from next year, and therefore we are not contemplating budgetary aid for the future, but development aid.

Kenya (Land Transfer Schemes)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what steps the British High Commissioner in Kenya is taking, in view of recent representations made to him, to investigate the reason-

ableness of valuations of land offered under the million-acre scheme.

Mr. Prentice: The British High Commissioner in Nairobi is in constant touch with the Kenya authorities on the administration of the land transfer schemes which are being assisted by British farmers is valued in accordance with the agreements between the British and Kenya Governments.

Mr. Turton: In view of the allegations that the British High Commission is not carrying out the responsibility laid on it under the agreement between the two Governments, either in the million-acre scheme or the 400,000-acre scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman set up an independent judicial inquiry to investigate these allegations, both in the interests of the British High Commission, and of the Government?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I do not think that there is a case for that proposal. I will always consider representations made to me. With regard to the million-acre scheme, to which the original Question relates, the main difficulty arose towards the end of the scheme in the Cherangani area. The British High Commission made representations to the Kenya Government, which resulted in new offers being made. Sixteen farmers received new offers, and 13 have since accepted them.

Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that the Government agreed that if the offer fell outside an agreed bracket, which was taken broadly as 20 per cent., the British High Commissioner had a right to intervene? Why has he not intervened in the cases submitted to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and the cases which I submitted to him?

Mr. Prentice: In my supplementary reply I referred to the instances when he intervened with some success. If there are other cases, perhaps I could have more details from the hon. Gentleman.

United Nations Committee for Trade and Development

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what contribution his department is making to the


deliberations of the United Nations Committee for Trade and Development at New Delhi.

Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and four officials from my Ministry are members of the United Kingdom delegation. My Ministry has taken the lead in all preparations for the conference concerning developmental matters.

Sir G. Sinclair: In the light of the Stikker Report, will the right hon. Gentleman say what he and his colleagues have done to facilitate private investment in the developing countries?

Mr. Prentice: It is a continuing concern of my Ministry to try to encourage private investment in developing countries, and we do this in a large number of ways.

Mr. Braine: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask why, in an extremely long speech, the President of the Board of Trade made no reference to the Stikker Report, and no reference to the advantage of private investment in the developing countries?

Mr. Prentice: I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to question my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about this, but I make the comment that he, like other leaders of delegations, had to confine within a fairly short time a speech which covered a vast area of both trade and development polices.

Feasibility Studies

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Minister of Overseas Development how many feasibility studies have been financed by his Department in 1966 and 1967; what was the cost to Her Majesty's Government; and how many British and foreign firms, respectively, received contracts as a result of these studies.

Mr. Prentice: In 1966, 16 feasibility studies were commissioned by the Ministry of Overseas Development at a cost to Her Majesty's Government of £128,400. In 1967, 28 studies were commissioned. The cost to the British Government was £291,500.
As at 1st February this year, 15 of these studies had not been completed.

Decisions of the overseas Governments or other authorities in relation to the studies that have been completed have not yet been communicated to me.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that action of this nature has put our overseas firms on equal competitive terms with the firms of other competing countries which rely on consultants often sponsored by themselves?

Mr. Prentice: We now normally require an assurance that any project carried out in accordance with the recommendations of one of these feasibility reports will not be financed in such a way that British companies can be precluded from tendering. I think that that gives the hon. Gentleman the kind of assurance that he wants. I think that, generally, these feasibility studies are helpful to British trade as well as being helpful to the countries in which they take place.

Vietnam (Aid)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what his Department is contributing in technical aid to help the civilian population in Vietnam; and what arrangements he is making to co-operate with voluntary organisations.

Mr. Prentice: We expect to spend about £367,000 on aid to Vietnam in the current financial year, of which £285,000 will be on the Vote of my Department. Depending on the nature and cost of the requests we receive from the Vietnamese Government, I would expect my Department to spend between £200,000 and £300,000 on technical aid in 1968–69. These figures do not include expenditure from the grant of £250,000 which we are providing for emergency aid.
As regards the voluntary organisations, we are working very closely with them.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does not he agree that the best way we can help to rehabilitate the country is by providing technical aid, and that we should carry on with this for as long as we possibly can?

Mr. Prentice: I agree with that. There is a later Question about our future plans in regard to medical aid, in particular, which plays the biggest part in our technical assistance programme.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any aid or assistance given should get through to the right people? Will he tell us something about the co-ordination between the British Embassy and the voluntary organisations?

Mr. Prentice: It is true that we must ensure that aid gets through to the people who need it, and the staff of the British Embassy are working hard on these matters. They are working hard both in relation to the official aid, which is financed by Her Majesty's Government, and the aid which is now flowing to an increasing extent from voluntary organisations in this country.

Earl of Dalkeith: In view of the great public interest in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper or a Report showing in detail how this money is being spent?

Mr. Prentice: I will consider that, although I must say that from replies to this Question and others on the Order Paper quite a lot of information will be available to the House.

Mr. Rankin: As Vietnam consists of North Vietnam and South Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend say how the aid is distributed between those two countries?

Mr. Prentice: Government aid is entirely to South Vietnam. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] No request has been received from the Government of North Vietnam for official aid from this country. If a request were received, it would certainly be considered. The funds from voluntary bodies are going to both parts of Vietnam.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In his reply my right hon. Friend said that this aid was being given to Vietnam. He has now said that it is being given to only one part of Vietnam, South Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what medical assistance he intends to send to Vietnam.

Mr. Prentice: We expect soon to increase the British medical team to 26 or 27 for work in the children's hospital and in two large residual refugee camps to be established in Cholon; to provide more equipment and supplies for the expanded activities of the British medical project; and to provide substantial equipment for provincial hospitals to replace equipment destroyed or damaged in the recent fighting.
These proposals conform to requests made to us by the South Vietnamese Minister of Health and are based on advice from my Chief Medical Adviser who has just returned from Saigon.

Mr. Goodhart: While nurses seem to be volunteering in large numbers for service in Vietnam, is there still a shortage of doctor volunteers? If so, will the Minister consider sending some Service doctors to help in civilian hospitals?

Mr. Prentice: I think that the sending of Service men, whether doctors or anyone else, would have very great complications. As for the recruitment of doctors and nurses, as I said in reply to an earlier Question, we hope to build up the team to 26 or 27, but it is too early to say what success we are having in this recruitment. It is true that nurses are coming forward more readily than doctors, but we hope to fill all the vacancies in both categories.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister consider making overtures to ensure that the aid is equitably spread between North and South Vietnam, because many people in North Vietnam are suffering from the vicious American bombing?

Mr. Prentice: I have already made it clear that our aid is going to South Vietnam, that this is in response to requests from South Vietnam and that we have had no requests for aid from North Vietnam.

Ceylon Widows' and Orphans' Pension Fund

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development since the pensions of widows payable from the Ceylon Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund are


payable in Ceylon rupees and they are therefore suffering a loss in income, what steps he is taking to mitigate the effects of the British devaluation on their incomes.

Mr. Prentice: The loss in income arises not from the British devaluation, but the greater Ceylon devaluation. We are in consultation with the Ceylon Government on means by which the sterling value of these pensions might be maintained, and we are continuing to base supplements payable from British funds on the original sterling value.

Mr. Tilney: Should Ceylon do nothing about the basic pension, will the Government augment it, bearing in mind the fact that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said about our devaluation that the poor would not really be affected?

Mr. Prentice: I think that that point is a little premature. Consultation is going on through the High Commission in Ceylon, and I hope that this will be successful. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to say anything at this stage which might prejudice that discussion.

Overseas Civil Service (Pensions)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether, since the Index of Retail Prices has risen by 6·2 per cent. from the last time that the pensions of members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service were supplemented, and the hourly wage rate index has risen by 10·2 per cent. during the same period, he will consider making a further supplement available for pensioners of those Commonwealth countries that have not increased pensions to expatriate officers in the meantime.

Mr. Prentice: Pension supplements to overseas pensioners are governed by the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1962 and 1965, and correspond to those granted to United Kingdom public service pensioners. The Government's policy relating to public service pensioners was stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in his speech on 26th January. �ž[Vol. 757; c. 796.]

Mr. Tilney: May I ask by how much prices have to rise before pensioners are thought of again?

Mr. Prentice: These matters were dealt with by my hon. Friend in the speech to which I referred. He said that the Government would continue to keep this matter under review, and balance the claims of public service pensioners against other claims on the public purse.

Aid Programmes (United Kingdom Orders)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the estimated value of orders placed in the United Kingdom during 1967–68 as the result of multilateral aid programmes and of untied aid programmes by countries other than the United Kingdom; and how this compares with the value of orders placed in this country during the same year as the result of United Kingdom tied aid programmes.

Mr. Prentice: Orders placed in the United Kingdom from multilateral programmes in 1967–68 are hard to quantify but should be about £30 million. Other countries' untied aid amounted to £330 million in 1966. Some will have been spent here but the value cannot be accurately estimated. Orders directly attributable to British tied aid should be about £100 million in 1967–68.

Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the figures for untied aid and multilateral aid are very encouraging for our own economic self-interest and that we should give a lead in the development of this sort of aid internationally?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, the figures are encouraging. It is my policy that the proportion of aid going through multilateral agencies should increase to some extent, and this will be apparent in next year's programme. On the general untying of aid, it would probably benefit this country if all aid throughout the world were untied, but this country clearly cannot, on its own, untie its aid, unless others are prepared to do the same.

Overseas Aid and Development Programme

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what will be the net cost of the British overseas aid and development programme in 1967–68 and


1968–69 as compared with the gross targets for those years after the receipt of interest and capital repayment on loans to the developing countries; and whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed analysis of such repayments.

Mr. Prentice: The gross target for the basic aid programme in each year is £205 million. Figures for actual disbursements cannot yet be given. Capital repayments and interests together are expected to amount to about £53 million and £58 million respectively in the two years. I shall, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the amount of aid now

EXPECTED CAPITAL REPAYMENTS AND INTEREST PAYMENTS ON BRITISH GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC AID LOANS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES


£ million





1967–68


1968–69





Capital
Interest
Total
Capital
Interest
Total


A. COMMONWEALTH


Europe and Middle East


Cyprus
…
0·042
0·069
0·111
0·174
0·064
0·238


Gibraltar
…
0·012
—
0·012
0·015
0·014
0·029


Malta
…
0·093
0·344
0·437
0·113
0·415
0·528


Africa


West Africa


Gambia
…
—
0·002
0·002
—
0·002
0·002


Ghana
…
0·360
0·178
0·538
0·490
0·158
0·648


Nigeria
…
1·004*
1·518
2·522
1·253*
1·540
2·793


Sierra Leone
…
0·239
0·358
0·597
0·244
0·344
0·588


East Africa


Kenya
…
0·623
2·081
2·704
0·650
2·098
2·748


Tanzania
…
0·091
0·471
0·562
0·150
0·475
0·625


Uganda
…
0·198
0·880
1·078
0·414
0·869
1·283


General—Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda
…
0·492
0·723
1·215
0·511
0·778
1·289


Central and Southern Africa


Botswana
…
0·044
0·101
0·145
0·047
0·099
0·146


Lesotho
…
0·012
0·027
0·039
0·015
0·025
0·040


Malawi
…
0·154
0·242
0·396
0·168
0·261
0·429


Rhodesia
…
0·150
0·084
0·234
0·326
0·261
0·587


Swaziland
…
0·070
0·150
0·220
0·088
0·146
0·234


Zambia
…
0·172
0·209
0·381
0·176
0·200
0·376


Other Africa


Mauritius
…
0·157
0·201
0·358
0·128
0·201
0·329


Seychelles
…
0·005
—
0·005
0·005
—
0·005


St. Helena
…
0·001
—
0·001
0·001
—
0·001


America


Central and Caribbean


Cayman Islands
…
0·001
0·007
0·008
0·001
0·009
0·010


Honduras (British)
…
0·028
0·044
0·072
0·027
0·042
0·069


Jamaica
…
0·109
0·074
0·183
0·072
0·072
0·144


Montserrat
…
0·015
—
0·015
—
—
—


St. Vincent
…
0·001
—
0·001
0·001
—
0·001


Trinidad and Tobago
…
—
0·056
0·056
—
0·073
0·073


Turks and Caicos
…
—
—
—
0·003
—
0·003


Associated States


Antigua
…
0·013
0·047
0·060
0·014
0·046
0·060


Dominica
…
0·001
—
0·001
0·001
—
0·001


Grenada
…
0·061
0·044
0·105
0·066
0·042
0·108


St. Kitts
…
0·009
—
0·009
0·009
—
0·009


St. Lucia
…
0·002
0·002
0·004
0·002
0·002
0·004


General—West Indies
…
0·026
0·014
0·040
—
—
—


South America


Guyana
…
0·363
0·771
1·134
0·385
0·749
1·134

coming back in the form of interests and capital repayments is extremely worrying, that loans are a most unfortunate form of assistance, and that we should move still further away from a reliance on loans as soon as possible?

Mr. Prentice: It is reasonable that a proportion of aid should be in the form of loans, but these loans should take account of the economic circumstances of the countries concerned. That is why one of the most important improvements in our aid programmes came about two or three years ago, when we moved in the direction of interest-free loans. About 90 per cent. of our new loans since then have been interest-free.

Following is the information:

£ million




1967–68


1968–69




Capital
Interest
Total
Capital
Interest
Total


Asia (excluding Middle East)


Ceylon
0·487
0·77
0·564
0·440
0·055
0·495


Hong Kong
0·200
—
0·200
0·200
—
0·200


India
10·964
8·519
19·483
12·856
8·194
21·050


Malaysia
0·855
0·045
0·900
0·855
0·029
0·884


Pakistan
2·156
1·537
3·693
2·336
1·730
4·066


Singapore
0·014
—
0·014
0·189
—
0· 189


Oceania


Fiji
0·043
0·123
0·166
0·046
0·120
0·166


Tonga
0·004
0·004
0·008
0·007
0·004
0·011


General


Commonwealth Development Corporation (Exchequer Advances)
1·121
3·613
4·734
1·930
5·573
7·505


Total
20·392
22·615
43·007
24·408
24·692
49·100


B. FOREIGN


Europe and Middle East


Iran
—
0·172
0·172
—
0·229
0·229


Republic of S. Yemen
0·140
0·189
0·329
0·141
0·184
0·325


Turkey
1·026
0·099
1·125
1·603
0·.234
1·837


Yugoslavia
2·125
0·528
2·653
1·295
0·058
1·353


Africa


North Africa


U.A.R. (Egypt)
0·480
0·142
0·622
0·480
0·119
0·599


West Africa


Cameroons
0·017
0·042
0·059
0·009
0·020
0·029


Liberia
—
0·014
0·014
—
0·014
0·014


East Africa


Sudan
—
0·291
0·291
0·320
0·306
0·626


America


South America


Argentina
1·604
0·531
2·135
1·976
0·436
2·412


Bolivia
0·036
0·011
0·047
0·036
0·009
0·045


Brazil
1·003
0·217
1·220
0·604
0·156
0·760


Chile
0·438
0·291
0·729
0·632
0·256
0·888


Ecuador
—
0·015
0·015
—
0·022
0·022


Peru
—
0·021
0·021
—
0·034
0·034


Asia (excluding Middle East)


Afghanistan
—
—
—
0·022
—
0·002


Korea (South)
—
0·023
0·023
—
0·032
0·032


Nepal
0·026
0·035
0·061
0·026
0·037
0·063


Total
6·895
2·621
9·516
7·124
2·146
9·270


Grand Total
27·287
25·236
52·523
31·532
26·838
58·370


*Excludes interest-free loan for compensation for Special List "B" officers, repayments of which vary with numbers retiring.

Egypt

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister for Overseas Development if he will now stop all aid in any form to Egypt.

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. In fact the only direct aid my Ministry is giving to the U.A.R. at present is to pay the cost of one Egyptian trainee in Britain. The British Council is also providing some training facilities in this country for a number of Egyptians.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I welcome the scanty nature of that aid. Does the right

hon. Gentleman not accept that, while Egypt is spending large sums on arms which menace her neighbours and wilfully casting away revenues by keeping the Suez Canal closed, it is wrong to ask the British taxpayer to help her?

Mr. Prentice: I do not think, from the figures which I have given, that the British taxpayer is contributing a significant sum in this respect. It is probably in the interests of the U.A.R. and its neighbours for economic progress to take place in the U.A.R. Therefore, I see no ground for stopping the rather modest programme which we have at present.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not some discussion proceeding now between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the U.A.R. about a £20 million loan for Egypt? Will my right hon. Friend understand that there will be no question of provision of this kind to Egypt—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] May I be allowed to put a question with the consent—I was proceeding and I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker—I object to interruptions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not interrupt himself.

Mr. Shinwell: May I put my point? Can it be understood that there can be no question of aid to Egypt unless it abandons its intransigence in the area?

Mr. Prentice: I think that my right hon. Friend means the short bridging loan which has been provided by a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, to assist Egypt to repay her debt to the I.M.F. This is a matter of a loan for a few weeks only, and the responsibility for it falls right outside my Department.

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that no loan or underwriting of an international loan should be made available to Egypt except on condition that the blocked sterling balances belonging to many hundreds of British subjects in Cairo are released?

Mr. Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the question of the short-term bridging loan, he should do so with the Foreign Secretary. I do not agree personally with the view which he just expressed.

Mr. George Jeger: Should not aid to Egypt be in the form of advice on how to clear the Suez Canal and open it to international shipping, thus enabling Egypt to earn her own living?

Mr. Prentice: Certainly, all of us would join my hon. Friend in the hope that the Suez Canal should be opened as soon as possible.

British Virgin Islands (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if he will make a

statement on his visit to the British Virgin Islands.

Mr. Prentice: I spent three days in the British Virgin Islands earlier this month in order to see something of the development problems of this small British dependent territory and of the efforts which are being made to solve them. It is clear that economic growth depends largely on the development of tourism. I am glad to see that steady development is taking place, mainly in the private sector. Her Majesty's Government are helping considerably with the improvement of the airport, and the new comprehensive school among other things. Our total aid next financial year is expected to be over £400,000 approaching 20 per cent. higher than this year.

Mr. Marten: I am glad to hear that Answer. As the British Virgins use dollars—[Laughter.]—as the British Virgin Islanders use dollars as their local currency, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to increase our financial aid, in view of devaluation, by the amount of devaluation?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir, the figures have been adjusted to take into account the effects of devaluation.

Trusteeship Commission (Vote on Gibraltar)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Overseas Development which of the 70 nations voting on the Trusteeship Commission in favour of the resolution deploring the Gibraltar referendum or abstaining, receives aid from Great Britain.

Mr. Prentice: As the reply is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Digby: Is the number then considerable or not? If so, is it not rather surprising? Does the Minister take into 'account the attitude of a country towards self-determination when considering allocations?

Mr. Prentice: As I said in reply to an earlier Question, the political attitudes of a country, in the long run, have some effect, but it would be wrong and against our interests as well as those of developing countries if we were to look at a


specific instance like a vote in the U.N. and say that we would turn off aid immediately to the countries concerned.

Mr. Murray: What does my right hon. Friend consider to be "the long run"? It would be wrong, surely, if we gave aid on the basis of political considerations rather than of need.

Mr. Prentice: I mean, for example, that, if a country were to break off diplomatic relations with us, it would be unlikely that any new aid agreements would be reached with that country.

Mr. Tilney: Would the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to help Gibraltar, especially because, since yesterday, Gibraltarians may have great difficulty in coming here?

Mr. Prentice: It has been made clear many times from this Box that the British Government stand by Gibraltar and their relations with Gibraltar.

Following is the reply:

The following are receiving aid in 1967–68:

Countries which supported the resolution in the Trusteeship Committee:

Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Gabon. Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, U.A.R.. Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zambia.

Countries which abstained in the Trusteeship Committee:

Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Kinshasa), Cyprus. Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malagasy Republic, Mexico, Nepal, Niger. Senegal, Singapore, Thailand, Togo, Uganda.

South Vietnam (Assistance)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what assistance has been sent to Vietnam by his Department since the escalation of the fighting.

Mr. Prentice: As the list of supplies and equipment is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. One additional nurse joined the medical team in Saigon on 21st February.

Mr. Goodhart: I would thank the Minister for his personal interest in Vietnam. Will he remember that both West

Germany and Japan are doing ten times as much as we are to relieve civilian suffering in South Vietnam? Will he press his colleagues to let him be more generous?

Mr. Prentice: The emergency aid which we are giving is gratefully appreciated in South Vietnam, and our supplies were among the earliest to reach Saigon. We are doing something of value here. In reply to a later Question. I will give details of our future intentions.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Has an adequate amount of aid been sent to North Vietnam? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this would be coincident with our position as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference and conducive to the cause of peace?

Mr. Prentice: We normally respond to requests for aid from countries concerned. We have had no such request from North Vietnam, but if one were received we should, of course, consider it.

Following is the information:

Details of Medical Supplies and Equipment supplied to South Vietnam In February, 1968.

Vaccines

51,000 units plague.
10,000 units cholera.
10,000 units TAB.

Blood plasma

200 bottles 400 c.c. blood plasma and suitable quantities of dextrose in water and distilled water.

Antibiotics

40,000 streptotriad tablets.
20,000 chloroamphenicol tablets.
30,000 neomycin tablets.
10,000 penicillin tablets, etc. etc.

Other items

1–1 ton lorry.
1–1 ton ambulance fully equipped with drugs, dressing, instruments, etc.
1–3 ton truck with trailer.
6 Refrigerators (for vaccines).
1–3·5 emergency generator and spares.
1 Autoclave (non-electric).
1 Walkie Talkie apparatus.
1 Rotary pump.
400 lb. D.D.T.
280 lb. Chlorine.
100,000 water purification tablets.
Latrine disinfectants.
Miscellaneous replacement supplies (surgical dressings and drugs).

Industry (Surplus Capacity)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what action he has taken to assist industry to


use its unused capacity to meet overseas needs.

Mr. Prentice: My Ministry tries to take account of surplus capacity when administering the aid programme. The choice of goods financed under the programme is, however, primarily governed by the development requirements of the recipient countries and it is not usually practicable to relate credits specifically to surplus capacity.

Dame Joan Vickers: What contribution was offered by private industry at the U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference which was held recently in Delhi?

Mr. Prentice: The U.N.C.T.A.D. Conference is a conference of Governments and we did not, at the last one, relay any offer from private industry.

Mr. Braine: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that this was one of the more imaginative proposals contained in the 1964 Labour Party manifesto? Is he now saying that it was totally impracticable?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir, it is not totally impracticable and something is being done about it. It is difficult to operate this on a large scale because of the difficulty of relating specifically the requirements of a developing country, in terms of its development plans and so on, to surplus capacity here, particularly since there is often a time lag between the time when a plan is drawn up and the availability of goods in a particular place.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of interest is being shown in this matter on both sides of the House? Will he do his utmost to see that unused capacity in various parts of the country, including the North-East, in regard to, for example, ships and engineering, is made use of for the benefit of countries in Africa and elsewhere?

Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. I am aware of that, and all sections of my Department receive bulletins at regular intervals of surplus capacity in various parts of Britain of which they should take account in the planning of their programmes; but there are limitations on the effect of this, for the reasons I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

National Giro (Computer Equipment)

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the effect of future mergers in the British computer industry upon the supply of equipment for the National Giro.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Edward Short): As far as I am aware, there should be no effect. The future needs of the National Giro are adequately covered in the contract already placed for British computer equipment.

Letter Deliveries, London

Mr. Bryan: asked the Postmaster-General what percentage of fully-paid letters for addresses in London, and posted in time for the last collection in London, are delivered by first post the next working day.

Mr. Edward Short: I am unable to give precise figures, as the regular monthly returns on which we base our statistics do not take account of place of posting. However, test checks made from time to time in London give results rather better than the national average.

Mr. Bryan: That is a most extraordinary reply, remembering that when Questions were last addressed to the Postmaster-General the right hon. Gentleman said that the services in London were rather worse than in other parts of the country. This is indeed the reaction of London hon. Members to their post.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be questions.

Mr. Short: When this Question was last put—and I have the details with me—I said that the parcel service in London was not satisfactory, but that the letter service was rather better.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Local Radio Stations

Mr. Bryan: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a further statement on the financing of local radio stations.

Mr. Edward Short: I have nothing to add to my Answers of 20th December to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and of 25th January to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry).—[Vol. 756, c. 458-9; Vol. 757, c. 556–81

Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 8th November last he made a statement, which was officially confirmed by a Press hand-out, saying that it would be unfair to pay for local radio out of the proceeds or income of the receiving licence? As obviously substantial sums are being paid by the B.B.C.—in other words, out of licence fees—would the right hon. Gentleman please correct his statement'? Will he—

Mr. Dunn: On a point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman's lengthy supplementary is more in the nature of a statement than a question?

Mr. Speaker: I was aware of that. Mr. Short.

Mr. Short: The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) is continuing his campaign against one of the most imaginative broadcasting experiments this country has seen since broadcasting started. When the experiment has been running for a year we will be able to evaluate it, and I will then report to the House. If the hon. Gentleman has seen, for example, the Press hand-out relating to the Merseyside broadcasting station he will have noted that a great deal of money is coming in from other organisations and that it may well be that there is none at all from the B.B.C.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOURIST INDUSTRY

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to coordinate the responsibilities of the Board of Trade, Ministry of Agriculture, Home Office and Treasury with regard to the tourist industry.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friends already work closely together on all matters of common concern, and no further measures of co-ordination are needed.

Mr. Blaker: Is not that a rather curious reply in view of the fact that the Minister of State at the Board of Trade told the House in December that an inter-departmental working group was considering the question of improving co-ordination between these Departments? What Departments are represented on that working group, and when will it report?

The Prime Minister: It would be rather unusual to answer questions of that kind, but this is one reason why I said that we are working closely together on matters of common concern.

Mr. Heath: As in the last seven years this country has been fourteenth out of 15 countries in the degree of increase in revenue from overseas tourism, is it not time for the Government to make a major, positive, imaginative effort to help those catering for tourism in Britain and attract tourists from overseas?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can, no doubt, speak for his own period when he was in charge of this at the Board of Trade—[Interruption.]—and that went back quite a long way. Certainly we are considering—and this was made clear in the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State—what further can be done. There is a great development in hotel accommodation and consideration is being given to what further can be done; but I do not think it would be helpful if I were to say more at this stage.

Sir G. de Freitas: Would the Prime Minister consider designating a Minister for Tourism so that the people engaged in this industry can look to one Minister in these matters?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Board of Trade has special responsibility for this and also, of course, for shipping and air travel, three subjects which are very closely connected one with another. He is the Minister to whom my hon. Friend should make his approaches.

Mr. Blaker: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY CONTRACTS (REDUNDANT PERSONNEL)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Labour in respect of the employment of servicemen and civilians working on military contracts made redundant by the recent cuts in defence expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman's Question raises some questions of importance, the answer to which would involve a long reply, and so, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Earl of Dalkeith: Can the Prime Minister say what specific action is emerging from the co-ordination that is taking place to stem the brain drain or any consequential drain of personnel of high quality and calibre, which Britain can ill afford to lose?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this matter, although the wider subject of the brain drain has been dealt with in the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. It is inevitably the case that when there is a closure of a particular kind of activity which involves the use of highly specialised personnel, there will be a danger of this kind, but we are seeking to minimise that and to minimise redundancy.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's question, which was about specific action being taken to deal with the very real problem of the brain drain being accentuated by cuts in the defence industry. Will he answer that?

The Prime Minister: I said that there would inevitably be some loss of highly skilled personnel if there was no longer a requirement for their skill as a result of defence closures; and there may be some of that as a result of recent closures. However. the right hon. Gentleman must realise that cuts in defence must be made if we are to cut down the growth of Government expenditure. We have had very little help from hon. Gentlemen

opposite on this question, but it is bound to have some side effects of the kind that have been mentioned.

Following is the information:

Yes, Sir. There are well established arrangements for placing ex-Servicemen in civil employment and on these there is close cooperation between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Defence. The two Departments are jointly reviewing the arrangements in the light of recent decisions which will increase the normal outflow from the Forces. As regards employment on defence contracts, co-operation between industry, the sponsoring Departments and the Ministry of Labour is close. The full range of the Ministry's employment services will be brought into action without difficulty in the event of redundancy.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister what further steps are being taken to follow up the proposals contained in the communiqu8é following his visit to Moscow for a European Security Conference; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 28th February by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).—[Vol. 759, c. 224.]

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 191 hon. Members have signed a Motion supporting the contents of the communiqué? Is he aware that we believe this is one of the most hopeful and imaginative ideas that has come out of the visit to Moscow? Will he indicate whether any sort of discussions are going on which can help towards a European Security Conference?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Kosygin and I, not only in this year's meeting in Moscow, but a year ago in London, agreed on the idea of a European Security Conference, but we both felt that it must be properly prepared. While we have now agreed, this year, unlike last year, to have discussions between us, we have also agreed that those discussions cannot be exclusive; we have to talk with friends and allies on this question just as he will have people to consult.

Mr. Heath: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister about the need for


preparation. I am sure he realises that it is the division of Germany which lies at the heart of the question of European security. Has the Prime Minister any fresh ideas in mind to help to a solution of this problem?

The Prime Minister: No. There are two views each side of the Iron Curtain on this question. The communiqué said that all European countries should be among those concerned—but it would take a great deal of preparation and prior negotiation to reach agreement between those in the East and those in the West on whether East Germany is a country or not. We have taken the other view.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-FRENCH RELATIONS

Mr. Heffer: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit General de Gaulle to discuss Anglo-French relations and mutual problems; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: None at present, Sir.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear to my right hon. Friend that a number of very serious misunderstandings have arisen between this country and France? Is it not also clear that the time has come to eliminate those misunderstandings and help towards getting a united Europe, which could be arranged if we had an understanding with France?

The Prime Minister: The aim of a united Europe which my hon. Friend, I, and most of us in this House are anxious to see created, of course depends on French acceptance of the ideas we have put forward. These have been very clearly put forward and I do not think there is any misunderstanding, although in the last month the understanding has been only too painfully clear.

Mr. Ridley: Does the Prime Minister agree that it appears that we shall have to do a deal with the French if we are ever to get Europe united? Would it not be wise for him to find out what is involved and what the French conditions are?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with

this at some length on Monday and he had to tell the House, as I did on Tuesday, that there is no clarity at all on what the arrangements mentioned in the Franco-German Declaration mean or whether they have any interest for us. I think the first step is that mentioned by my right hon. Friend on Monday. For this we must await the meetings which are going on, I think, today, between the Foreign Ministers of the Six.

Mr. Henig: In view of the fact that the major obstacles to the achievement of the Government's European policy are the differences between this country and France, would it not be better for my right hon. Friend to engage in talks with the French Government rather than to spend time in a mutual admiration society which will achieve nothing with the Benelux countries?

The Prime Minister: We are, of course, dealing with the Six as a whole and the Benelux countries are three of the Six members. It is important, having accepted the Benelux proposals that we should do all in our power to see that further progress is made. So far as the French are concerned, I had very detailed discussions with President de Gaulle more than once last year—my right hon. Friend was with me on the first occasion—and I do not think anyone would believe it is easy to convert the President from a deeply held position about the entry of Britain to the Common Market. If I thought it was I would have no hesitation in establishing further discussions.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister agree that while admission to the Community is denied to us there is no reason why we should not discuss individual arrangements either with individual nations in so far as they are responsible or with the community as a whole in the same way as we do with any other country affecting trade and so on?

The Prime Minister: Yes. These are going on and it is one of the key proposals of the Benelux formulation as the Leader of the Opposition will know. As I indicated on Tuesday, our new proposals in regard to technology which we have been working out will envisage this on a bilateral as well as a multilateral basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVALUATION

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek a meeting with the heads of those States which are Great Britain's main creditors since devaluation.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: In view of the recent readjustment in the world's reserve currency, and in particular in relation to the American deficit, has the Prime Minister any fresh thinking on the question of liquidity on which he can inform the House?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member will know that I discussed the liquidity matter on my recent visit to Washington. He will know of the progress—slow, but nevertheless welcome—at the meeting chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some months ago in London, and subsequent action was taken in Rio and also in Washington. The International Monetary Fund representatives have been discussiong in detail the preparation of a plan to follow up the Rio Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to Lord Alport's suggestion of a Commission of Privy Councillors analogous to the Cobbold Commission, to go to Rhodesia after the expected General Election to report thereon and also to ascertain the views of Rhodesian citizens not qualified to vote; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The noble Lord's suggestions put forward in another place were a personal contribution by him and it is not for me to comment on them. What matters is that recognition of what is needed for an honourable settlement should come from Salisbury because it is there that the difficulty lies. As the House knows the illegal régime in Rhodesia have a number of times in the past turned down proposals involving the use of Privy Councillors in attempts to bring about a settlement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not significant that there is no urge to emigrate to the

United Kingdom on the part of the Asian community of Rhodesia, but that on the other hand sanctions—[Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: —on the other hand, sanctions are tending to encourage racialist and republican tendencies in Rhodesia? Will the Prime Minister therefore, take advantage of the ideas of Lord Alport and the up-to-date impressions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in trying to seek early negotiations for a settlement which if not reached soon, may never be reached?

The Prime Minister: Racialist and to a less extent republican tendencies existed in the ruling circles of Rhodesia long before there were any sanctions and long before the illegal declaration of independence. So far as Lord Alport's suggestions are concerned, it was of course with our agreement that he went out last year and came back with hopes that something might be achieved; but of course, when my right hon. Friend went there to discuss these matters with Mr. Smith it was clear that to a considerable extent he had turned his back on the "Tiger" proposals. In regard to the visit by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), I am looking forward to having a discussion with him later this afternoon.

Mr. Bellenger: Without wishing to prejudice any confidential views or expression of views either from Sir Humphrey Gibbs to Her Majesty's Government or any unofficial source, can my right hon. Friend say, from the information which he must now have received from one source or another, that there is any possibility of any compromise agreement?

The Prime Minister: As I have already told the House—and my right hon. Friend has—the position is that on three vitally important principles the response by Mr. Smith to my right hon. Friend in November was, as I say, more negative than it had been at the time of the "Tiger" talks. I am, of course, looking forward to a discussion with the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perth who has,


I think, returned from Rhodesia with certain facts he feels I ought to have, and naturally I shall want to consider what he has to say.

Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that the Cobbold Commission was successful in ascertaining opinion in Malaysia? Would it not be a good thing for settlement of the Rhodesian problem if the Prime Minister would indicate that he felt an analogous commission could fulfil the fifth principle?

The Prime Minister: I did make the suggestion and it was agreed on the "Tiger" that a suitable commission should be sent. There was some discussion about personnel, which was largely left to the United Kingdom. But before U.D.I. and on various occasions since we have proposed either a mission of Privy Councillors from this House, or this Parliament rather, or Privy Councillors or Commonwealth leaders, or Commonwealth constitutional experts, or Commonwealth Prime Ministers. All these have been turned down.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the commitment which governs the position of the Govment, both as regards the House and the pledge to the Commonwealth, is no independence before majority rule? Will he also confirm that the proposals made on the "Tiger" went very far indeed to appease Mr. Smith in so far as, according to Sir Edgar Whitehead, they would have meant the denial of majority rule in Rhodesia until the end of the century? Will the Prime Minister take into account these commitments in any discussions that are held in the future?

The Prime Minister: Our position with regard to the statement that I made in the House a year last December still stands, as I have repeatedly said it stands, and we should require a very substantial change of circumstances to justify fresh consultations with the Commonwealth on that matter. With regard to the "Tiger" proposals, it was certainly not our view, nor, indeed, the view of those involved in the talks on H.M.S. "Tiger", that such a delay would be involved. I think the best estimate we could make would have been something like 10 or 12 years on the basis of the constitutional proposals which I put forward on that occasion.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE?

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House, whom we welcome back, to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 4TH MARCH, and TUESDAY, 5TH MARCH—Debate on a Government Motion to approve the White Paper on Defence (Command No. 3540).

At the end on Monday, Prayer on the White Fish and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) (Amendment) Scheme.

At the end on Tuesday, Motion on the Weights and Measures (Additional Metric Weights) Order and Prayer on the Fees for Game and other Licences (Variation) Order.

WEDNESDAY, 6TH MARCH—Supply (12th Allotted Day): Army Estimates, 1968–69, Vote A.

THURSDAY, 7TH MARCH—Supply (13th Allotted Day): Air Estimates, 1968–69, Vote A.

FRIDAY, 8TH MARCH—Private Members' Motion.

MONDAY, 11TH MARCH—Supply (14th Allotted Day): Navy Estimates, 1968–69, Vote A.

On Wednesday and Thursday, 6th and 7th March, and Monday, 11th March, the rule will, in accordance with recent precedents, be suspended for 2 hours. Until 10 o'clock on those day the debates will arise on Opposition Motions related to the appropriate Service Departments.

Mr. Heath: First, may I confirm, as the Leader of the House has said, that our Motions down for the three days on the Estimates will be closely related to the appropriate Services? Secondly, perhaps the Leader of the House will now be aware of the statement made by the Minister of Technology yesterday, which was of a very serious kind. We on this side believe that the House would wish to take full advantage of the Minister's suggestion for a debate at the earliest


opportunity. Perhaps the Leader of the House could indicate when he thinks this will be possible.

Mr. Crossman: I read in HANSARD what had happened. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said. It is difficult at this time to know exactly when we can have the debate. The matter is not sub judice. It is entirely up to us when we can debate it. I would like to take it as soon as we possibly can, bearing in mind the pressure we have with defence debates and the Budget work.

Mr. Heath: We appreciate that the matter is not sub judice. On the other hand, there are matters of the gravest national interest involved, as well as important matters affecting individuals and the firm. We would therefore like the right hon. Gentleman to give this matter a high priority in his arrangement of Government business.

Mr. Crossman: I merely wanted to make it clear that there was no reason at all why we should not debate the issue. It is simply a matter of the convenience of the House when we can find time to debate it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I stress the very great desire for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the Bristol Siddeley affair? As it was not just civil servants but a Select Committee of the House which was intentionally misled, can my right hon. Friend guide the House on what remedy Members of the House have?

Mr. Crossman: We are discussing the business for next week. The question of what the Public Accounts Committee does or does not do is up to that Committee and not to me. I was asked about a debate. I emphasise again that I think that it is of the greatest importance to have a debate, since very serious issues are raised.

Mr. Ellis: I want to press my right hon. Friend on the matter of the Wilson Report. This is of the gravest urgency. Many of my constituents who have worked for this firm in the past—the firm is now amalgamated—feel very intensely about it. Their jobs and their livelihood are at stake. We want to

clear the aircraft industry, but we are quite sure that the guilty men must suffer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the Report at the moment.

Mr. Ellis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm. He must, however, ask for time for a debate.

Mr. Ellis: Sir, I believe that we should take urgent action. How soon can we get a debate so that the Public Accounts Committee may take action on the Report, because I believe that it was misled?

Mr. Crossman: I think that my hon. Friend is under a delusion. What the Public Accounts Committee does or does not do about the issue which affects it is very much for it to discuss on its own. The other major issues are issues of national importance about the conduct of the firm. This is what the House should discuss. We have now got into the season of our Defence Estimates and Supply Days, which we have to get through. After that we have the Budget coming along. I will seek as far as humanly possible to get in debates, but there is very little Government time now and we must do our best.

Mr. Bryan: When can we expect a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on the Post Office and on the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Post Office, which are both now a year overdue?

Mr. Crossman: If it is for the convenience of the House, I think, that we might have at the beginning a short debate—say, of an hour and a half or so—on the understanding that we find time later on when it is more convenient. If that would suit the House, it would suit us as well.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the serious revelations and the controversial proposals contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, will my right hon. Friend confirm his earlier promise that we can debate the Report before Easter?

Mr. Crossman: Yes; I see no reason why we should not. I think that there


is time before Easter, but I am still awaiting the replies of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to a number of statements made in the Report. It is on the basis of the Report and the replies that the debate will take place.

Mr. Onslow: Can the Leader of the House clear up two points about the Wilson Report? First, will he confirm that the House may proceed to debate this irrespective of whatever the Public Accounts Committee may or may not decide to do? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is very important indeed that we should have some assurance about debating it before Easter?

Mr. Crossman: I have already told the House that it is for the House to debate the issues raised in the Wilson Report and for the Committee on Public Accounts to make up its own mind on its own affairs. There is no doubt about that. I hope that we shall be able to find time to debate this matter before Easter, but I remind the House that we have the business to get through. I will discuss this matter through the usual channels, appreciating that both sides want to debate the Report.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will my right hon. Friend regard it as an urgent matter to provide time for the discussion of two matters relating to Welsh affairs, namely, the Gittins Report on Primary Education in Wales and the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Local Government in Wales which was published as far back as last summer?

Mr. Crossman: I have borne in mind the problem of the White Paper on the Reorganisation of Local Government in Wales. I will certainly keep it in mind, though I do not think that it is one of those things to which I can give top priority. The Report on Primary Education in Wales is also an extremely important document and we must see when we can find time to debate it.

Sir C. Osborne: As next week's business will involve the consideration of spending over £2,000 million, and as the House cannot really debate the matter properly unless it knows the actual economic facts of the nation—whether it

can afford it—would the right hon. Gentleman press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us before those debates the facts he has given to the I.M.F., so as to let us know what our real position is?

Mr. Crossman: I will communicate that message to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Swain: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Minister of Power intends to make a statement next week about the Regulations under the Coal Industry Act, 1967? If not, will my right hon. Friend once again draw the Minister of Power's attention to the grave urgency attaching to this matter?

Mr. Crossman: I shall be delighted to bring that to my right hon. Friend's attention. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend will make the statement as soon as he can.

Mr. Orme: Returning to the Bristol Siddeley affair—I see that my hon. Friend winces, but this is a very important matter—will he consult the Leader of the Opposition to see, as right hon. and hon. Members opposite are anxious for a debate, if some time might be provided by them in conjunction with the Government? When the Government wanted to find time for the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill they did so, and as we sat on Tuesday morning, is my right hon. Friend saying that the House cannot find time to discuss this important matter?

Mr. Crossman: On the contrary, I am in no way suggesting that the House could not find time. I only warned the House that we have a great deal of top priority subjects to deal with in our Defence Estimates and Budget debates, and I said that once one had made that priority this was the debate which both sides of the House clearly felt to be the most important of the newer things which confronted us.

Mr. Murray: As the Hawker Siddeley affair made the Great Train Robbery look like chicken feed, if my right hon. Friend cannot give us a debate on Hawker Siddeley—[HON. MEMBERS: "Bristol Siddeley."]—Bristol Siddeley—could he give us something—

An Hon. Member: It is not Hawker Siddeley at all.

Mr. Murray: I corrected myself and said "Bristol Siddeley".

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not intervene on his own Business question.

Mr. Murray: If we cannot have a debate on Bristol Siddeley, can we have something which would be just as relevant—a debate on the Estimates Committee's Report on Prisons?

Mr. Crossman: I think that we should keep the two separate as far as possible.

Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman fully seized of the importance of this matter? It is exactly because the Wilson Report is not sub judice—though why it is not I have not found anybody to tell me—that it is so important that we should immediately have a debate.

Mr. Crossman: I was aware of its importance. I found a study of the Report extremely interesting.

Mr. Pavitt: In view of the impending visit of U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the admiration most hon. Members have for his tireless efforts to stop the war in Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend seek to arrange for both Houses of Parliament to meet him?

Mr. Crossman: That is a suggestion which I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be for you to consider in the first place. But certainly if that is my hon. Friend's wish I shall bear it in mind.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the reports emanating from France about a possible chance of discussions between America and the North Vietnamese about Vietnam, and as there has been a great escalation of the war, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that we shall have an early debate on the question of Vietnam?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that I can add anything to what I said last Thursday on the subject of priority debates. We now recognise that there is more than one subject that we want to debate. Vietnam is certainly one, but I can go no further than I did last week.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend say when we shall have a state

ment about the form of the inquiry into the third London Airport? There is a need for an early statement about when it will be set up and start taking evidence, so that people in the areas concerned will know exactly what the position is.

Mr. Crossman: I cannot make any statement about that this week, nor would I expect it to be in next week's business statement.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the Leader of the House explain why it always seems possible to find time for urgent matters like the Wilson Report but it is never possible to find time for the pressing question of the reform of Parliament in Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Crossman: If I remember rightly, we had a most illuminating Liberal Ten-minute Rule Bill last week—a whole 10 minutes devoted to the subject.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since we are due to have a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Monday on the future of the ban on meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic, and on Wednesday we are due to have the Annual Price Review, can the Leader of the House tell us when both those matters will be debated? Both will require to be debated urgently.

Mr. Crossman: We had better confine ourselves to the busines of next week. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Price Review statement will come on Wednesday and the foot-and-mouth disease statement on Monday. We had better hear them first and then we can discuss what to do about them.

BILL PRESENTED

WILLS

Bill to restrict, the operation of section 15 of the Wills Act, 1837, presented by Sir Barnett Janner; supported by Mr. Jack Dunnett, Sir George Sinclair, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. William Wilson, Mr. David Steel, Mr. Geoffrey Wilson, Sir Myer Galpern, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. David Ensor, and Mr. Emlyn Hooson; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered, That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Varley.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
That any Proceedings on or relating to any Amendments made by the Lords to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Proceedings on the motion relating to the Ayrshire Police Order may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.
I know that the House wants to get on with business, but may I say that if the Motion is agreed to and we conclude the business on the Order Paper this evening ahead of any message from another place on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if you, Mr. Speaker, felt able to suspend the sitting for a lengthy period, possibly even until, say, 9 o'clock tomorrow morning? I am sure that that would be for the general convenience of you and the members of the staff, particularly after last night's extended sitting.

Mr. Thorpe: I intervene at this stage in order to impress on the Government that they may not be taking the wisest course, in view of last night's events and the Press reports of the revision of what was said in the debate. Owing to the rushed manner in which the Bill was pushed through the House, many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House felt that they would wish to have had a longer time on the Report stage.
Be that as it may, the Bill has now gone to another place, and the number of their Lordships who have put down their names to speak indicates that there is not exactly a lack of interest in the Measure. Therefore, as the Motion indicates, there may well be Amendments. As I see it, the Government could well be in the position that they will have virtually no time to give careful consideration to those Amendments. They

may well feel that it is right and proper that they should consider some of them.
If any right hon. or hon. Members have doubts about the grave danger which one runs into in rushing through very complicated, very important legislation, they have only to see in the two London evening papers today that the Home Office has put out statements clarifying what it regarded as having been said by the Home Secretary, but which to those of us who were present and heard the Under-Secretary of State and the Home Secretary are in direct contravention of the undertakings and understandings which the House accepted when it was sitting in Committee.
It would not be in order to go into those details, but there is no doubt that the Government have got themselves into an appalling mess, and have done so because the interpretation given to the Home Secretary's undertaking or under standing was that if any person was expelled we should have to take him or her in. Now there is a fresh interpretation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now tempting himself to go out of order. He must link his remarks to the Motion.

Mr. Thorpe: With the experience of having rushed the Bill through this House and the very necessity for the Home Office today to put out statements clarifying what it interprets as having occurred during yesterday's Sitting, it is all the more important that the Government should have time to reflect upon any Amendments which may come to this House from another place. If one thing is evident, it is the necessity for legislation of this sort being clear beyond peradventure, and, therefore, for the Government to put themselves in a position in which they may not be giving proper time to reflect on Amendments from another place is courting disaster. The experience of what has already happened is the most conclusive evidence against taking the action we are now invited to take.

Mr. Bellenger: What the Leader of the Liberal Party has just said is mainly conjectural. We do not know whether another place will make any Amendments. Therefore, I take it that what


my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is doing, in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to suspend the Sitting until tomorrow, is merely in order to be able to proceed with Amendments which may come and nothing else, and not to have a continuation of the debate we had before the House took its definite decision. I hope the House will accede to the Motion for a speedy determination of anything that may come to us from another place and nothing more.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should like elucidation from the Leader of the House as to the intention of the Motion in two respects. In the first place, he indicated the possibility of a suspension of the Sitting until 9 a.m. tomorrow, the House resuming to deal with any Amendments coming from another place. But supposing the proceedings in another place last longer than that. Is it the intention that this suspended Sitting should therefore be resumed after 11 a.m. tomorrow? In which case, what is the effect on tomorrow's Sitting and tomorrow's business?
Secondly, and perhaps a bigger question, in the Motion it is implicitly assumed that this House and another place will come to final agreement, on any Amendments which another place may put into the Bill, in time for the Royal Assent to be given at any rate tomorrow. Has the right hon. Gentleman at least contemplated the possibility of a disagreement between the two Houses? If he has, may I ask how this Motion will operate with a view to the suspension of the present Sitting?

Mr. Michael Foot: All of us who were present in the House throughout last night, whatever disagreements we may have about this subject, will agree that it is a matter of extreme importance because it affects the claims upon this House made by people who hold United Kingdom passports and who have looked to this House for protection, and that the question is how we are to provide it. We should, therefore, consider very carefully how we conduct our business upon that matter.
This Motion is novel in some respects. I want to add to what has been asked by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

What form of notification is to be given to right hon. and hon. Members so that those who wish to be here to participate when the further debate takes place know when that is to occur once the Government have made their decision? How will the House be informed of the time we are to meet?
It is necessary that we should have the clearest understanding about this. It is necessary that every right hon. and hon. Member who wishes to participate should have the longest possible warning, and if this Motion does not provide that it is right that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should inform us. It may be possible for the Government to consider a fresh statement to the House, say at 7 p.m., by moving the Adjournment of the proceedings. They could then inform the House what procedure is to be followed tonight and tomorrow morning. The position is not clear now.
Whatever right hon. and hon. Members may think of the Bill, I say to the House that it would be unseemly and regretted by all right hon. and hon. Members, including the Government, if there were a misunderstanding about how this Bill were to be passed through the House, and I urge the Government to agree to making a fresh statement to us later this afternoon on the procedure to be followed.

Sir D. Glover: While agreeing with every word said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about the mess the Government have got themselves into over this Bill, perhaps I can help the Leader of the House by pointing out that surely he does not need to ask Mr. Speaker to take this extraordinary procedure after 10 o'clock tonight. Since we are due to consider then Early Day Motion No. 164, relating to the Ayrshire Police, surely, under our now procedure, the Minister in charge could move the Adjournment of the House until tomorrow morning.

Mr. Crossman: Not on a Thursday night.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the unprecedented interest in the affairs of the Ayrshire Police, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House say how the movers of that important Motion can help him? Does he want us to postpone it, take it at length, or what?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I subscribe strongly to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had to say. I would take his argument a little further. It is conceivable, and not within our control, that their Lordships might decide to sit all through tomorrow, in which case I suppose it is conceivable that we might have to be suspended until Saturday.
I also want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a point concerning the wording of the Motion. It refers to
… the Royal Assent to the Acts …".
Are we likely to have to await the Royal Assent to other Acts beside the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill? What is the purpose of the plural?

Mr. John Fraser: During the night, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made a number of helpful statements, but it is taxing the memory of hon. Members to recollect the precise text of what was said. The HANSARD report of the overnight debates will not be available until tomorrow, since there was a cut-off at about ten o'clock last night. It would be useful to right hon. and hon. Members if it were possible, before ten o'clock tonight, to have proofs of the report of the overnight debates placed in the Library.

Mr. David Steel: Those of us who followed last night's proceedings carefully are profoundly shaken by the reports in the evening newspapers and on the tapes. They reinforce our view that, whatever the technical difficulties of the House meeting later, or having a lengthy suspension, in principle this Motion is bad. The events we have already witnessed demonstrate already that it would be folly for the House to proceed further with the Bill without a complete break and time for consideration. For that reason, we on the Liberal benches intend to vote against it in any case.
There is another point in addition to that raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Is it not the case that tomorrow is Private Members' Day? If the Government require to encroach upon that time, will they give an undertaking that those private Members who

had Bills to bring forward will be given an opportunity to do so later?

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the present position is not at all satisfactory. Last night the Home Secretary gave certain assurances which were very welcome, and on the strength of these a certain decision was taken. There appears to be some reason now to doubt whether these can be confirmed or not. It is important from the point of view of the House that, before the Bill is finally disposed of, those assurances should be made crystal clear. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us in what way this can be done?

Mr. Henig: May I put this to my right hon. Friend? It seems that it is somewhat below the dignity of this House and this Parliament that a Measure of this importance affecting people with British passports should be rushed through in a way that might suggest to people outside that the zeal for carrying it through was greater than the desire to see that it was a fair and just Measure. May I ask my right hon. Friend—if he is listening, and I know that he has a great interest in constitutional matters—whether he can explain what exactly is the purpose of this Measure being considered at all in another place and Amendments being suggested if the minute, nay the second, this process is finished we are to be called here immediately to give our verdict on those amendments?
Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Home Secretary has already worked out contingency planning for each Amendment that might conceivably be passed by the other place? Would he not reflect again and realise that on all sides of the House there is a great feeling that this is being rushed through in an undignified manner? Will he think again and let this take place with the normal processes of interchange between the two Houses?

Mr. Onslow: May I take up the point of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig). These proceedings are not enhancing the dignity of this House. The Leader of the House has a particular duty to explain to us what is involved in the Motion. If he persists in this, may I appeal to him to give some consideration to withdrawing the Motion and coming


back at a later stage to make a statement which will enable us to understand precisely how the Government intend to get the House out of the mess into which they have got us?

Mr. Heffer: Could my right hon. Friend adopt the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)? It is pretty clear that the Government have got themselves into a very difficult situation, to say the least. The difficult situation has arisen because of the strength of feeling against this Bill. A number of people in the other place have put down their names to speak in the debate and it is now indicated to us that they are likely to go on throughout the night. This shows that there is a great strength of feeling here, in the other place and in the country about this Bill.
Under those circumstances, surely it would be very wise for the Government to make a further statement at 7 o'clock this evening in order that we may know precisely what the position is. I would go further than that. I suggest that while the statement is being considered the Government should look at the possibility of bringing this matter before the House early next week. Otherwise we shall be accused of indecent haste in rushing this Bill through, giving the impression that we are keen to get this sort of legislation through quickly, whereas other legislation can go on for a long period of time. In all the circumstances. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to accept the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. Let us have a further statement at 7 o'clock and consider bringing the Bill before the House early next week.

Mr. Turton: There appears to be one point raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) requiring more consideration. Under the Motion as drafted, the plan suggested by the Lord President could mean that a Private Members' Day would be quite unnecessarily destroyed. The other place could go on debating for such a period that we could save the Private Members' Day by tacking this Motion on to the beginning of the Private Members' Day. I would ask the Lord President to reconsider the wording of the Motion. It would not do us

any harm if we had a gap of an hour or so so that we could study what Amendments, if any, the other place had made. I feel sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who has the first Bill tomorrow, would not feel prejudiced if the beginning of Private Members' Day was occupied by the quick passage of the Lords Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Crossman: It might be for the convenience of the House, as I know we want to get on with our main business. if I were to clarify this. I will try to answer some of the points raised. First of all, I would say "No" to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), because we know he attaches much importance to this Measure and it is right that he should go ahead with it. There is no question of confusion here. What I was seeking to do was to take precautions in advance so that we could meet a situation sensibly, when it came. This is what we are doing. It is possible that as a result of what goes on in another place there will be no Amendments, in which case these precautions will be unnecessary.
The issue has been raised, first by the Liberals but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that we should not seek to complete this Bill this week but postpone it to next week. That is a clear issue on which we must vote. It is clear to me and to the Government and a good many people in this House that, whatever the merits of the Bill, it is essential that we should get it done quickly and decisively. It is no good arguing about this, we have to vote on the issue, and I will therefore confine myself to the points other than this major issue.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is that we shall follow the usual procedures which are applied whenever we deal with Lords Amendments. It is possible that we shall have Lords Amendments, and time to consider them. I would not think that we were here giving ourselves an unusual rush. I have known Lords Amendments come down and be properly and duly considered, even sent back and sent back again. We are leaving room for all this.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I would say that if you, Mr. Speaker, were to suggest that the House should have another statement from me at 7 o'clock I do not see what could be added then. I have put this as a suggestion that you will decide in due course to suspend the sitting, possibly until 9 a.m. tomorrow. That seems to be something which needs to be done so that the House will have enough time. If we do it, it is not because we assume that the time will be required, but it is a precaution against that event.
As to the point about Private Members' Day, I am much concerned about this. It is conceivable, it is one of the hypotheses which might occur, that we began to discuss the Lords Amendments, if there were any, at 9 a.m. tomorrow, and the discussion was so prolonged that it ran over 11 o'clock. If that happens the Private Members' Business would fall automatically and we should lose it. I very much hope that this will not happen, and it is in order that it should not happen that we are taking the precautions we have. I suggest that we should now come to a decision on this matter.

Mr. Hogg: I have a point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman, because I genuinely want to know, for the convenience of the House. Obviously if another place does not make any Amendments there will be no further discussion here on the Bill. Equally, if another place continues to discuss this late into the night there must come a time, however long the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) proceeds with the PRAYER against the Ayrshire Police Order, when the House will want to know that consideration of the Bill will be postponed until the following morning. At what moment on the clock does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that time will have come, because I have not got that clear in my mind at all?

Mr. Crossman: It is my own ambiguity, but I imagined that when we have passed this Motion you would announce, Mr. Speaker, the time to which you thought the sitting should be suspended. I had assumed it should be announced

as soon as possible, for the convenience of hon. Members. That is why I did not think it necessary to have a later statement. That is for you to decide Mr. Speaker, and not for me to say.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can help us on one matter. He said, and rightly, that the House should have proper opportunity to discuss the Lords' Amendments. How does one discuss Lords' Amendments properly if there is no copy of HANSARD available to us giving us the arguments advanced for and against the Amendments of their Lordships? This is something which I do not understand. How can we discuss Amendments properly without knowing the discussion which has gone on in their Lordships' House? We cannot all crowd into the gallery of their Lordships' House to hear for ourselves the arguments advanced.

Mr. Crossman: We shall study the Lords' Amendments on their merits, as we normally do, and I suspect that by that time we shall know pretty well what the arguments were behind them. I do not think that this is an insuperable difficulty, and we have to measure the urgency of the Bill against the desirability of protracted discussion.

Mr. Emery: I wish to raise a technical point which seems to me to be nevertheless very important. If there are Lords' Amendments—and I do not think the House knows whether there are Government Amendments in the Lords or not—is there to be an Order Paper where they will be printed for us before we discuss them? It seems wrong that on an issue of this importance we should be asked to reject Amendments from their Lordships' House which we have not even in print in front of us on an Order Paper.

Mr. Crossman: It will depend partly on the time of their Lordships' debate. because the form in which the Amendments come to us will vary according to the time at which they have been made.

Mr. Whitaker: Could I press my right hon. Friend to reply to the point about safeguarding the rights of private Members tomorrow? If this House reported progress and delayed consideration of the Immigration Bill for only a few more


days there would be no need for the Bill at all, which might be a solution that satisfied everybody.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Leader of the House deal with the point about whether, when any Papers come back from the other place, we shall be in possession of the record of what was said in the debate by the Home Secretary last night? This is very material indeed to the debate in this House. We are expecting another place to debate this very important matter without any record at all of what was said by the Home Secretary last night.

Mr. Crossman: I apologise for not answering that point. According to the normal practice, the carbon copies of HANSARD are placed in the Library, so they could be available now.

Mr. Awdry: On the question of HANSARD reports, are not we making a mockery of the other House, which will debate this matter for the whole of this afternoon, and probably this evening, without being able to read one single word of anything said in the other place? This makes a complete mockery of the proceedings.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With the leave of the House, I call Mr. Hogg.

Mr. Hogg: There is a version of what the right hon. Gentleman said in the printed HANSARD. Perhaps he will confirm that that is an accurate report,

because that may assist my hon. Friend behind me.

Mr. Callaghan: It is as it appears in HANSARD, because I trust the HANSARD Reporters to report exactly what I say. I stand by it. What appears in the Press is the responsibility of the Press. If there is said to be a difference in tone between what two Ministers say, that is something for people to assess. There have been the usual contacts between the Home Office and the Press. The Home Office have been besieged with inquiries all the week. What I said stands and is there to be interpreted.

Mr. Heath: There is a reference to this in HANSARD. I asked what would be done about a man thrown out of work and rejected from the country, and the right hon. Gentleman said:
We shall have to take him. We cannot do anything else in those circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1968 Vol. 759, c. 1501.]
That is a clear statement. Does the Home Secretary stand by that?

Mr. Callaghan: Certainly, Sir. It is to be read against the background of everything I said; it was a long speech made with very great care, and the whole thing stands together and forms a coherent policy.

Question put: —

The House divided:  Ayes 204, Noes 74.

Division No. 79.]
AYES
[4.18 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Alldritt, Walter
Coe, Denis
Ellis, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Concannon, J. D.
Ennals, David


Beaney, Alan
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ensor, David


Bell, Ronald
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Eyre, Reginald


Bence, Cyril
Crowder, F. P.
Farr, John


Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fernyhough, E.


Biffen, John
Dalyell, Tam
Finch, Harold


Bishop, E. S.
Dance, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Blackburn, F.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Ford, Ben


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fowler, Gerry


Bossom, Sir Clive
Davits, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boston, Terence
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Freeson, Reginald


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boyden, James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Garrett, W. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gourlay, Harry


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Edmund
Gower, Raymond


Brooks, Edwin
Dempsey, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Doig, Peter
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Buchan, Norman
Eden, Sir John
Gurden, Harold


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)




Hamilton, William (Fife, w.)
Mackie, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Haseldine, Norman
Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hazell, Bert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roebuck, Roy


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Hilton, W. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Manuel, Archie
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mapp, Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hoy, James
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Huckfield, Leslie
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Skeffington, Arthur


Hunter, Adam
Mayhew, Christopher
Small, William


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Mellish, Robert
Snow, Julian


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Molloy, William
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Swingler, Stephen


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Murray, Albert
Taverne, Dick


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir E1wyn(W. Ham, S.)
Neal, Harold
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Oakes, Gordon
Thornton, Ernest


Kenyon, Clifford
O'Malley, Brian
Tinn, James


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Urwin, T. W.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lawson, George
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon amp; Radnor)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lomas, Kenneth
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Longden, Gilbert
Price, William (Rugby)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


McBride, Neil
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McCann, John
Randall, Harry
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


MacColl, James
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


MacDermot, Niall,
Rees, Merlyn
Yates, Victor


McGuire, Michael
Reynolds, G. W.



McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rhodes, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Joseph Harper and




Mr. Eric G. Varley.




NOES


Awdry, Daniel
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Baker, W. H. K.
Hill, J. E. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Peyton, John


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Booth, Albert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,Namp;M)
Hunt, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Stodart, Anthony


Clark, Henry
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Tapsell, Peter


Cordle, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Costain, A. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jopling, Michael
Vickers, Dame Joan


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Dickens, James
Lane, David
Walters, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Weitzman, David


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Whitaker, Ben


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Marten, Neil
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winnick, David


Fortescue, Tim
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Worstey, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)
Mikardo, Ian
Wright, Esmond


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wylie, N. R.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles



Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nott, John
Mr. David Steel and


Heffer, Eric S.
Onslow, Cranley
Dr. M. P. Winstanley.

Ordered,
That any Proceedings on or relating to any Amendments made by the Lords to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and the Proceedings on the motion relating to the Ayrshire Police Order may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any

hour, though opposed; and that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House and the House has now


decided that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn this House until this Bill—and possibly one other—has reached a stage when I can announce the Royal Assent.
There are three possible courses open to Mr. Speaker. One is that he should sit waiting in the Chair after the Ayrshire Police Order has been disposed of hour by hour, by hour. I would think that that would not commend itself to anyone in the House. Certainly it would not to Mr. Speaker. The second is that, after we have completed the business of the day, I should suspend the Sitting, perhaps for an hour, perhaps for two hours, come back and, if we have nothing from their Lordships, suspend it again. It has been suggested by the Leader of the House, however, that a rational course might be to suspend the Sitting until some reasonable time tomorrow morning, particularly as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this Measure have themselves been up all last night.
Unless I hear any serious objections from the House, what I propose to do then is that when we have completed the day's business I shall suspend the House until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. That will enable right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and many of the servants of the House to have a rest before we go on with the Sitting. I take it that that commends itself to the House.

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you assist us on one very important matter? If the third course of action commends itself, as it appears to, and if we meet at 9 o'clock and there is some debate, as is quite possible, is there any possibility, depending upon the amount of time taken, of sitting for an extra hour or two after 4 o'clock so that private Members shall not suffer?

Mr. Speaker: Unless I can be advised by the Clerk of the House, I know of no way in which that can be done. if the House sits tomorrow morning until even one minute past eleven, I am afraid that private Members' time for tomorrow has gone. I think that is right.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would not seek to suggest any other procedure than that which you have suggested. However, in the course of your statement you mentioned the possibility of another Bill as
well as the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. I am wondering what Bill that is.

Mr. Speaker: I took the word in the plural from the Order Paper. The Leader of the House did not answer the hon. Gentleman. I believe that there may be the Education Bill as well.

Mr. Crossman: It is the Mauritius Bill. [Laughter.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of this Sitting, did you not announce the Royal Assent to the Mauritius Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Everyone in the House, except the Leader of the House, knows that to be true. [Laughter.]

Mr. Crossman: In self-defence, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the word "Acts" was included in the Motion on the Order Paper, before you announced the Royal Assent to the Mauritius Bill. It was in the plural form, but was rendered unnecessary by your subsequent action.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us. Many hon. Members take a serious view of the business that is on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hill: On a point of information. Arising from your statement, Mr. Speaker, could you say whether the other place is remaining in session, because should Lords' Amendments come here and we reject them I understood that their Lordships would have to consider whether they would insist on their rejection before the Royal Assent. Therefore, could we have some information whether their Lordships propose to remain in session?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for Mr. Speaker. He has quite enough to do in his responsibilities here.

Mr. Emery: On a point of information. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for making clear the position about the suspension until 9 o'clock. I understand that if we proceed until one minute past 11 o'clock Private Members' Business is lost. It would be very helpful to the House, as the Leader of the House is so concerned about protecting the rights of private Members, if we could know that the Government would find time to replace


the lost day for Private Members' Business.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hedge we must jump when we get to it.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the pattern of progress which you have suggested is the right one, but have you considered the possibility that we might carry on this Friday's Private Business in the normal way and sit on Saturday to discuss the Lords' Amendments? This would give the House a chance to have these Amendments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has no power to arrange the business of the House. We have just carried a Motion arranging the business of the House concerning this matter. Mr. Speaker must abide by the instruction of the House.

Mr. Faulds: As the House has adopted this somewhat indigestible procedure, can we have a categorical assurance from the Leader of the House that the same procedure will be adopted on the Bill relating to race relations?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business to do and we must get on.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

CIVIL DEFENCE

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and some of his right hon. and hon Friends.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move,
That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's decision to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service and to abolish the Civil Defence responsibilities of local authorities contrary to the security interests of the nation, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make it possible for members of these services who so wish to continue on a voluntary basis.
Having spent most of the night wandering through the Lobbies in somewhat unfamiliar company, most of us are beginning to regard one another as almost human. This is a move in the right direction, because the events of the past few months have revealed that we are all deeply concerned about the state into which this country has fallen. Divided, as we certainly are, about the remedies to be applied, I think we owe it to one another to approach the problem in as unpolemical and objective a way as possible.
In raising the subject of civil defence, I assure the Home Secretary that I sincerely sympathise with any Minister of a spending Department who undergoes one of these periodical economy drives. I have been in that position at least twice, although I did not have to contend with the additional disadvantage of having recently been Chancellor of the Exchequer. This must have loaded the dice even more heavily against him than they were against me. Therefore, I do not want to reproach the right hon. Gentleman, so much as set forth the reasons why we on this side, and a number of people in the country, are disturbed by the particular decision at which the Government have arrived.
These periodical exercises in ministerial masochism are very painful. Each Minister is asked to sacrifice something


to demonstrate his willingness to make what used to be called when I was in the Conservative Government, a contribution. I have no doubt that the jargon of the Civil Service and of the Cabinet Room still persists. Some find it easier than others.
The contribution we are discussing this afternoon relates to civil defence. If I illustrate the points which I want to make by the estimates for last year rather than by the out turn, it is because they are more conveniently accessible than because they are entirely up to date. The Civil Defence Estimates, as they were published last year, were for £13 million, excluding a figure for Scotland which must be added to it. I have no doubt that the actual cost, as is always the case, was rather different. The estimates for the future will reduce that figure to about £7 million. Although these figures are somewhat difficult to reconcile with those in the Prime Minister's statement, the proportion which the saving bears to the whole is in each case approximately the same—about half.
What have we bought by that saving? We have destroyed the present capability of the Civil Defence Corps by disbanding it. We have sacrificed the dedicated service over many years of those who have trained themselves voluntarily in these particular skills, and we have put the whole apparatus on what is called a care and maintenance basis, whatever that may mean. We have abandoned the state of readiness to which the N.A.T.O. nations are supposed to be working, which is one of 72 hours, for what I understand to be a state of readiness, even if the cadre of personnel can be reassembled at all, to one of approximately six months. In other words, at the saving of approximately half, we have destroyed almost the entire present value of the service.
We have to discuss whether this was a wise decision. It bears many of the characteristics of the Treasury cuts which have taken place in successive Ministerial exercises in economy. The right hon. Gentleman had to defend his own estimates, and, comparing the figure of £13 million with the whole, again leaving out any Scottish figures, and the Lord Chancellor's Department, because both are printed en the same page of the Estimates, he had to defend, in last year's

terms, about £170 million of estimates. Of that, no less than £106 million was the police, not a very easily reducible figure, and he has not reduced it, for there the best contribution that he could offer was to restrain recruitment.
The next item was the headquarters, at £21 million. I do not want to make fun of this figure, because if one studies what is covered by it, one sees that there are a number of very important items indeed. I asked one of my hon. Friends who had been a Minister at the Home Office—because it is a fair question for the right hon. Gentleman to ask me, and one to which I cannot give him a wholly satisfactory answer, nor could I ever do so without the benefit of the Civil Service at my command—what fat there was in the Home Office headquarters to sacrifice, and he said in a melancholy kind of way, "Well, I believe there somewhere high up in the building is a typewriter of rather antique design, but the fact is that the Home Office has operated for many years on a shoestring, and is not the most extravagant of Departments". I accept that as being a general statement of the truth. Then there is child care at £6 million, and prisons at £28 million, and so civil defence at £13 million proved to be the lamb that was led to the slaughter
It is fair for the Government to ask what we would have done, and as long as they remember that they have the Civil Service, and we have not, that is a fair question to ask within the bounds of order, and I think that I should be within the bounds of order if I suggested three criteria. First, every Department has a certain amount of fat which can be cut off without serious loss of health. Secondly, there are a certain number of things which can be cut off without doing permanent damage to the service that one is seeking to provide, things which perhaps are the hobbies of individual officials or individual Ministers, things which on second thoughts one ought not to have tried at all. Thirdly, one can postpone useful projects which, none the less, can be postponed without permanent damage to the service
No doubt within the civil defence field there must have been a certain amount of fat, a certain amount of projects which ought to have been sacrificed, and a certain amount of projects which ought to


have been postponed. But the effect which we are criticising this afternoon is none of these things. The Government have decided to destroy the present value of the service altogether
Was it wise to do that? The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has put down an Amendment, not selected, which evidently indicates that he thought it was. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), by a curious coincidence, on the very day that the cuts were announced, had an Adjournment debate on civil defence, and he thought that it was. The reason the two hon. Gentlemen gave was that civil defence was of no use anyway. If a nuclear bomb is dropped, so the argument runs, we shall all be dead, including the civil defence, and so it is no good training them. If one accepts that premise, the conclusion must follow, but I could not but notice that the Government did not adopt the hon. Gentleman's Motion, and when the hon. Member for Putney put forward the argument it was indignantly repudiated by the Parliamentary Secretary. What is more, so far as I know, no European country accepts the argument, or has been so advised either by its military or its scientific advisers.

Mr. John M. Temple: Would my right hon. and learned Friend like to add that the Communist countries believe in civil defence?

Mr. Hogg: I have no reason to doubt it. The point that I about to make was that the hon. Gentleman sought to use my words to justify what he was saying. Those words, taken out of their context, fully justify the use that he made of them. I said on another occasion in this House, words which I do not repent or wish to qualify in any way. I told the House that we occupy an almost unique position in this world as being almost uniquely vulnerable to nuclear attack, I said that, although one could say that American might survive after a fashion, or China might survive after a fashion, or Russian might survive after a fashion, or the under-developed countries might not even be attacked and might therefore survive after a fashion, Britain would not survive.
I do not resile from the context in which I used that argument. These circumstances give us a unique moral authority to speak on issues of peace, not derived from military strength, but derived from military and physical vulnerability. I never meant to convey that as a matter of fact one can predict that every human being will disappear from the island if there is a nuclear attack.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as he has correctly said, his statement was:
I do not know."—
he was talking about the possibility of survival elsewhere—
but one thing I know, and that is that we would not survive …—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1650.]
In saying that was not he admitting that all the civil defence jargon about millions of survivors was sheer nonsense, and that the disappearance of this force was long overdue?

Mr. Hogg: No. That is precisely what I am seeking to explain. One must not argue too much like a lawyer, althongh I am sometimes guilty, though I hope not in this House, of arguing precisely in those terms. By that "we" I meant that this country would not survive, that the continuous life of this country which we had enjoyed for nearly 1,000 years, which is our almost unique inheritance, would disappear. I never meant to suggest that one could say that after a nuclear attack there would not be millions of people alive, millions of people sick, millions of people hurt, and millions of people in need of the common necessities of life and of the elements of civil Government.
I believe that to be the advice which the Government have received from their experts. It is certainly the advice which we received. All I am saying is that there is no country in the world which, so far as I know, has not taken the same view. Certainly the neutrals take it. Sweden and Switzerland take it. Switzerland has a form of conscription for civil defence, but we now are to be the odd man out doing something quite different from overy other civilised nation, and occupying a position in which the accepted


N.A.T.O. strategy of 72 hours is deliberately being abandoned in favour of six months. I wonder whether that is a responsible decision at which to arrive.
I say this not in any polemical spirit. We have to add this much to it. Most of us who have reached a certain age have, at some stage of our lives lived through two world wars, both of them terrible but less terrible than the catastrophe which we are considering. A contributory cause is commonly accepted to have been that this country, for all her peaceful intentions and the weakening of her resources at the time, never brought it home to potential aggressors that we were sufficiently in earnest, that, as for other men and women, there came a point at which there were things for which we were even prepared to die and even prepared to see our homes, our families and our country destroyed. If we had made that clear in the past, we might have been spared much blood and many tears.
Civil defence is not merely an insurance against the results of the possibility, but part of the complex of activities which we call defence, the object of which is to prevent the contingency happening. What must be added to my criticisms is that it is not simply the abandonment in what I hope—although I cannot judge—is an ameliorating international situation, of an insurance policy against what happens if the worst occurs but it is part of the policy to prevent the worst from occurring. I must add this, although I may be trespassing on what my right hon. Friend will say next week: that our information is that the whole of modern strategic thought by the great Powers is increasingly of the opinion that confrontation between them would not necessarily lead to a nuclear exchange.
For instance, the Soviet Union has fifty nuclear submarines, not all of them with missiles. The questions of our sea lanes over a long period of attrition and of conventional attacks are not to be excluded. This, too, is on the assumption that the N.A.T.O. period of alert of 72 hours is accepted provisionally as coma, which is abandoned as a result of what the Government have done.
I am not at all happy that, even if the worst does not occur, the presence of a credible complex of defence activities is

unnecessary. It is not very long since the Cuba crisis. I remember it clearly. I was in the Cabinet at the time. My wife had just had our latest child, and I was visiting her in the nursing home. So alarmed was I—I can give no other revelation which would not be a breach of confidence—that I seriously thought of baptising the baby in the washbasin of the nursing home lest she should not have been made a Christian before something happened.
Not the least debt which this country owes the late President Kennedy, whose tragic loss I shall ever deplore, was the way in which he handled that crisis not long ago. I cannot, with that experience at the back of my mind, believe that we are right to assume that nothing like it can happen again.
Another consideration is this. Are these services only for time of war? This is a most important question. I do not think that they are. For a long time, our complex industrial civilisation has been shown to be subject to contingencies, bottle-necks and all kinds of natural disasters. We remember the flooding of the Thames in the 1930s, with people in Chelsea and Poplar rendered homeless. We remember the 1953 floods at Lyn-mouth and the Hither Green disaster—the two trains, on a cold, foggy night, colliding on a railway bridge and the Auxiliary Fire Service, which is now to be destroyed, coming from all over London to help the professionals take the bodies of the injured from the wreckage. We remember Aberfan. We remember Glasgow, less than two months ago. We can think of other examples.
It is impossible to complete the catalogue of things which can happen to an industrial society in peace on a scale which renders the cadre of professional assistance inadequate for the purpose. Side by side with the professionals, surely there is room—I say, permanent room—quite irrespective of nuclear war or the confrontation of great powers, for the dedicated service voluntarily given by men and women whose vocation to help their fellow countrymen moves them in this direction. Are we to throw it all away?
I believe that all these professional services need their voluntary counterparts. The moment that I heard the announcement of the Prime Minister that


he would disband the Civil Defence, the Auxiliary Fire Service and the Territorial Army, the first thing I did was to ask the leader of my party to set up a policy committee to show how we could find a permanent niche in our industrial society for the dedicated, voluntary services and could re-establish them on some basis if necessary.
I see no necessity for them to be cast away. I do not believe that it is a necessary or a true economy. All industrial societies need people and services of this kind and people have been very deeply stirred by this more deeply than is known. Last Sunday—the fact was obliterated by other events commanding greater publicity—there was a parade of 2,000 voluntary workers from different parts of the country protesting at this decision, wearing their uniforms which will soon be taken away from them. They were received by the Under-Secretary with his customary consideration and courtesy.
Is it too late? All over the country, people are asking to be allowed to go on, without payment. The buildings are to be kept on a care and maintenance basis. It will not cost the Government very much. Perhaps it will cost them nothing at all. Local authorities still have personnel permanently employed, many of whom would be prepared to give their time out of working hours for nothing extra—

Mr. George Willis: What is stopping them?

Mr. Hogg: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is stopping them. He has only to look to the Government Front Bench to see—

Mr. James Dempsey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there has been a considerable amount of voluntary service in that field, quite apart from voluntary local authority service? Does this Government decision prohibit local authorities from rate spending to organise such a voluntary service?

Mr. Hogg: This is what I ask the Government. What is their policy? I want them to say that there is nothing to stop local authorities from doing this. I do not want to humiliate the Govern-

ment. I want them to say that this is the line which offers genuine economy without doing all the damage which I have been trying to describe. To borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), whom we have not seen about lately, here at least is one "uncranky way of backing Britain".
I believe that the days of this Parliament and this Government are numbered. I believe that our time is coming. We shall find some place for these voluntary services. I believe that it is only once in a generation or at most once in every 20 years that people make the mistake of thinking that "Labour Government works"; therefore I say to the voluntary services: "Hold fast. Relief is sure. It may come sooner than you think."

5.1 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
expresses its appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service for their services to the cause of Civil Defence, and while recognising the great value of the contribution made by the voluntary services, notes with approval that the Government, having regard to the economic and international situation, have decided to make a reduction in the level of Civil Defence".
I listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) with very great enjoyment, as I always do, and I must say that I thought his last daring words must have touched a chord in many hearts. "We shall find some place for these volunteers", he said. The last person who said something like that was that very great man Winston Churchill. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten what he said. In the extremely unlikely event of a Conservative Government being returned at the next election, I hope they will not do what that great man did. He gave a similar pledge which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously overlooked. He said he was going to reform the Home Guard, and he did so, and eighteen months later it died a quiet and natural death. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he has many of the attributes of that great man,


will not repeat all his follies and mistakes, Because if there is one thing anybody considering this matter probably would want to take into consideration, it is the fact that if you decide to disband a service like this you do not necessarily re-form it in its present form or anything like that. As for finding a place for them, I will be able to suggest many places in the course of what I have to say. But it was a good speech, and I would like to come right back to the beginning of what the right hon. Gentleman said.
This phrase, which apparently was so current in Conservative Government circles, that you make a contribution in the event of financial difficulties always seem to me more like a forced levy. Certainly it was not what we in the Free Church used to call a free-will offering, either in my own case or that of many of my Night hon. Friends. But it is true that when I was faced with this prospect I considered what should be done. I looked round to see what voluntary freewill offering would be forced upon me if I did not yield; what offering I could make. Looking round, I decided, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman has said, that it would be wrong to cut down on the police; and I estimated that about £5 million extra should be spent on the police in the course of the coming year. I decided it would be wrong to cut down on security in prisons, and an extra £3 million is being spent on that in the course of the current year.
I looked at the children's service and, frankly, there is nothing one can lop off that. As to the Home Office staff, the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave his own assessment of that and, refering to our earlier discussions this week, I was tempted to intervene at one moment. I cannot refer to past events, but I have heard hon. Gentlemen say in this House that there is going to be a great increase in the volume of tourist traffic, and, of course, more demands will be made on immigration officers. I am bound to tell the House that if it wants increased economy there cannot be any increase in the number of immigration officers this year, and this may well mean that we cannot expect in terms of time the same high level of services, because under the conditions laid down, which the party

opposite wanted as much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not in a position to recruit more than one or two, or a handful, of extra immigration officers this year.
I take up where the right hon. and learned Gentleman started, because there is a most meticulous and careful examination of the level of staffing, which is very desirable; and with my background I have no desire to try to inflate staffs or to create an empire. But I have looked into the time that is sometimes taken in the Home Office to answer letters of hon. Members. I do not like having to wait six weeks before letters are answered, and I find it very difficult, without an increase in staff, to cut down on delays or to improve much of the service that is being offered. I am not saying that everything in the Home Office is perfect. They would not believe me if I did so here because it is different from what I say there. But dealing with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's main point in this part of his speech, I can assure the House that there is a careful scrutiny going on and there is no doubt that a number of services which the Home Office could offer are not working at 100 per cent, efficiency, as I would like, because there is not the staff and I am deliberately refraining from recruiting staff to deal with that. That puts the backcloth to the picture with which I was confronted when I looked at the question of civil defence.

Mr. Peter Blaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking of the difficulty he has found on making economies within the Home Office Vote, on which it is perfectly fair for him to speak. But would it not have been possible for him to try to persuade his colleagues to make economies by abandoning the Transport Bill and the Transport Holding Bill, where great economies can be made?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman heard what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone that everybody in the Conservative Cabinet was asked to make a contribution. I am referring to the contribution I was asked to make to this general misery to which we were all subjected and I had to consider this within my own responsibility. As the right hon. Gentleman and those


who have sat in Conservative Government will know, one cannot get support in Cabinet if one says to the Cabinet, "I will not do anything, but what about him or her?" One has to look at one's own field, and that was what I had to do. I had to look at what contribution I could make.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that civil defence was being "abandoned". I would like to demonstrate later that this is not so, because I would not like that word to go out from the House. Civil defence is not being abandoned. Quite a sum of money is to be spent on civil defence which will have a purpose to fulfil.
I come now to the major point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. I acknowledge at once that it is a responsibility of Government to provide for the safety of its citizens in war as well as in peace, and that unless it can be shown that a country is in no danger of external attack it is the duty of every Government to make civil defence preparations. This is the view I hold. What is at issue this afternoon is the question of what should be the proper level of preparation in our present circumstances. Money spent on civil defence is, in effect, an insurance premium—I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman wholly agrees with what I say—and it is the Government's responsibility to consider the size of the premium in relation to the risk involved, the cover we get and the capacity of the nation to pay the premium.
First, what is the risk involved? I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the world is not at peace. Indeed, a brutal and bloody war is being waged even as we speak here this afternoon. At the same time, it is the Government's assessment that the risk of nuclear attack on these islands is less now than it was a few years ago. This is one of the considerations which led me to put forward the proposition that I did.
I think that the horrific consequences of a nuclear war are now so well appreciated that it is difficult to believe that any country would willingly provoke such a conflict. Moreover, the recent events in the Middle East and in Vietnam have provided real evidence, in the view of

the Government, that the Soviet Union and the United States are determined to avoid direct contact in a war situation.
I tell the House, as my conviction, that so long as the United States is committed to the defence of Europe and provided we keep up our active defences, there is very good reason to suppose that there will be no direct conflict in this theatre either. With this détente, the hope of peaceful coexistence between the two major nuclear powers appears to me to be as strong today as it ever has been.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the events of Cuba. I agree with him entirely. I thought that the courage and coolness shown by the late President Kennedy on that occasion would command my everlasting admiration. It must have been one of the most terrifying ordeals that any President of the United States—indeed, any human being—has ever had to endure. However, I think that it marked a turning point, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it could happen again, while he is of course right, I believe that the consequences of Cuba in the minds of both top American statesmen and generals and top Russians have acted more as a bringing together of these two major nuclear Powers than as something that might make them drift apart.
I will give an illustration of what I mean. For the last 18 months, and I have been watching this very closely, I have seen more evidence than ever before of the United States and Russia working together in a particular matter in which they have a common interest and with which civil defence is concerned. I refer to the tabling of a complete Treaty text by the co-Chairmen of the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee when the conference resumed in Geneva last month. This marked a new and, I believe—having studied the Treaty—a very significant step forward in the progress towards a non-proliferation agreement on nuclear weapons.
The fact that 18 countries, led by the two most important nuclear powers, are now on the brink of reaching an agreement to ban the further spread of nuclear weapons suggests to me that a worthwhile reduction in international tension is on the point of being achieved. It is true that two of the nuclear Powers, France


and China, are not taking part in these discussions. I deplore this, but I do not believe—indeed, I cannot believe—that the absence of these two nations will undermine the value of the Treaty. I sincerely hope, as do Her Majesty's Government, that the conclusion of a non-proliferation treaty will be the first step towards further measures which will lead to nuclear arms control and, later, to general disarmament. 'There are, therefore, some encouraging signs. I do not want to put the matter too high, but I repeat that it is against this background that I considered where economies should be made in the Home Office.
I would be the last to claim that we have sufficient justification for believing that the risk of nuclear war has completely gone. That would be absurd. There remains the danger, remote as we believe it to be, of accident or miscalculation. But the danger has lessened significantly enough in my view and in the view of the Government to permit us, at a time of extreme financial stringency, to look more closely than ever before at the level of expenditure on civil defence preparations—at what I would call the size of our insurance premium.

Admiral Morgan Giles: The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking about the reduced risk of conflict in Europe. How does he reconcile that with the decision of the Cabinet to withdraw from our positions overseas and concentrate our military forces in the defence of N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Callaghan: If I answered the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question fully, I would be wide of the subject of civil defence. I assure him that I am extremely interested in this topic and that perhaps on some other occasion, although this is unlikely, I might be asked to speak for the Government. I do not think that I can go wide enough to answer him, except to say that the nature of the Government's decision shows the need to concentrate on Europe and to maintain the N.A.T.O. defence system which, in my view, in relation to the subject under discussion today, is likely to make the prospect of tension or an outbreak of war in this theatre more unlikely.

Mr. Neil Marten: Can we draw the conclusion from what the right

hon. Gentleman has been saying that if there had not been a financial crisis, and if devaluation had not occurred, the Government would nevertheless have substantially cut down on civil defence? Does that mean that if we recover our finances, which I hope we shall, there is a chance of this force being reestablished?

Mr. Callaghan: I did not say that, and I do not think that I would draw such a conclusion. The size of the insurance premium one pays at any particular time is always related to one's capacity to pay. Sometimes one can insure more than at other times. I do not wish to be drawn into giving any undertaking, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone did, that this force would be re-formed. If the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was trying to tempt me into giving such an undertaking, I can only tell him that I must decline to walk down that primrose path.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister included in his statement of 16th January, in the light of these considerations and of the financial situation, the announcement of a substantial reduction in the level of our civil defence preparations. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that this is certainly not one of those shadow cuts to which he referred but a very real cut. I emphasise this again because there seems to have been some confusion about it. The preparations for civil defence have not ceased. We have decided to reduce civil defence, but not to abandon it. The previous programme was growing steadily and would have gone on growing in cost.
I appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone in considering the figures involved. They are somewhat confusing because at times they are described in terms of England and Wales expenditure, at other times they relate to Scottish expenditure, yet on other occasions—and this is a most difficult concept—they are related to public expenditure, which includes total expenditure by central and local government. If I give the figures of total annual public expenditure—local and national—it will be seen that the programme on which we would have embarked during the next financial year would have been


of the order of £25 million to £27 million, and that includes Scotland.

Sir David Renton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to what extent that figure includes expenditure on what one can only describe as "capital account"—that is, buildings and further extensions of the control system?

Mr. Callaghan: It would have included that. I have the complete make-up with me and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it would certainly have included the capital expenditure to which he referred. I cannot give him the exact figures for each item because the figures are divided between the services under capital and current account.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend give the figures for Scotland?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot. These are United Kingdom figures and I am afraid that I cannot break them down. I hope, however, that that will not be regarded as an insult to Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to give all the relevant figures required at the end of the debate. The revised arrangements are expected to reduce this figure of £25 million to £27 million to about £13 million in 1968–69 and to some £7 million or £8 million a year thereafter.
In practical terms, the main effects of this decision are these. We shall preserve those physical assets already in existence which have an operational value, but it will not be possible to spend further money on creating new assets. Training will have to be reduced to the level necessary to preserve a core of existing knowledge and experience. The Civil Defence Corps, with about 59,000 members and a further 10,000 to 11,000 on active reserve; making about 70,000 in all—and this is the gravamen of the complaint of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—and the Auxiliary Fire Service, with about 14,000 members, will have to be disbanded, and so will the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve III. On the other hand, the Women's Royal Voluntary service, which is predominantly concerned with peacetime activities, will be retained and the Royal Observer Corps will continue as part of the Warning and

Monitoring Organisation. The Warning and Monitoring Organisation will be retained, but with some reorganisation and reduction in expenditure.
Our Amendment pays tribute to the work of the volunteers in the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service. I want here to pay a very sincere tribute to the work of the two services which are continuing. The Royal Observer Corps does a first-class job. So, as every hon. Member knows, does the W.R.V.S. I think that this Service is one of the best investments the nation has ever made and the willing and cheerful work done by these ladies in all parts of the country is something of which every one of us has had very great experience and we deeply admire the effort they are making. I am delighted to say that the Service will be continuing, flourishing and, I hope, expanding.
That is a very brief summary. Perhaps I can go on in a little more detail and deal, first, with the Government's decision as regards local authority expenditure.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: The Secretary of State said just now that he thought it unlikely that a Cuba situation would arise again in that form. I take that point. It is a matter of opinion. Surely the crux of the matter is how long it would take, in a pending crisis, for the Government of the day to reactivate the civil defence organisation. Can he imagine the circumstances in which the Government would, six months before the event, which is the time required in the light of the winding-up of the civil defence organisation, begin to reactivate the Civil Defence Corps, with all the panic which would ensue in those six months?

Mr. Callaghan: I was proposing to deal with that a little later, but I will gladly deal with it now. Cuba blew up very quickly. It is possible to form a judgment that future crises are likely to be longer in developing than that was. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the reasons I have given. I shall not traverse that part of my speech again. I believe that there has been a growing understanding of the consequences of nuclear attack by both the U.S.S.R. and the United States. [Interruption.] As to China, I am being tempted on to ground which perhaps I should not attempt to


cover. I shall not discuss China's weapon capacity or her capacity to deliver a nuclear weapon or its range. It is reasonable, although obviously anybody can make his own judgment, to believe that there will be an opportunity to build up these services again. It is on that expectation that the Government are basing themselves.
I want the House also to recognise that, important though the civil defence and the A.F.S. were, they were, in a sense, auxiliary to a good many of the services which are now being operated in Britain for purposes either of civil defence in its broadest form or in relation to natural disasters, to which I will return later.
I hope that no one will think that I am writing down their efforts, but they were, as it were, supporting a very great volume of local authority effort in every direction, whether it was in the fire service, in the police, in the Red Cross, in the St. John Ambulance Brigade, or in borough engineers' departments. All these services would, in the event of a nuclear attack or, indeed, of any other type of attack on Britain, be brought into play. They remain. They exist. They are performing a very valuable peacetime function. I would not like it to be thought that the removal of the civil defence volunteers, who fulfilled an important function, thereby meant that we were entirely bereft of any precautions in the event of attacks building up.

Sir Frank Pearson: Will the Home Secretary answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe)? How long would it take?

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Gentleman had waited for one more sentence he would have heard me give the answer. I was about to say that I am not at all sure that anybody would want to recreate it in its present form, but I would accept, in the light of the maintenance which is going on, the physical assets which are being preserved, and the equipment which is being stored in 40 regional headquarters throughout the country, that the equipment could be dispersed very rapidly again. It is being properly maintained.

Sir Frank Pearson: Sir Frank Pearsonindicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only tell him that

it is being assembled in these headquarters very quickly and it could be dispersed equally quickly. The men would clearly take time to recruit and train again. No one knows exactly—it would depend on the crash programme—how long that would take. The House should not be under the delusion that the absence of the Civil Defence Corps would mean, therefore, that there would be no co-ordination of effort through the local authority system as it exists today. If I am not interrupted, perhaps I shall be allowed to go on to explain why.

Mr. George Younger: Mr. George Younger (Ayr)rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I shall not give way. I am being diverted to a great extent from my main theme. It is very interesting, but many hon. Members will want to speak.
Local authority expenditure on the maintenance of the volunteer forces and the costs of supporting administration has run at about £8 million a year, some three-quarters of which has come from the Exchequer. Under our proposals this total will be reduced to a little over £3 million next year and to about £1 million a year after that.
That part of our decision which, not surprisingly, has resulted in the greatest publicity and heartburning has been the decision to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service. It was a difficult decision to take. It was not one that I cared to take. I know that it is one which has caused a great deal of disappointment to volunteers in all parts of the country.
Having been diverted, allow me now to pay my tribute to the enthusiasm and devotion which these volunteers have shown in the past. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have had plenty of evidence, from the letters arriving in our offices and in other ways, of their enthusiasm and devotion. The Government are truly grateful for the services which the volunteers have given in the past.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said right at the beginning that the country had fallen into low straits, but these volunteers are a remarkable illustration that the idea of voluntary service, which, in my view, distinguishes Britain so much from so many other countries, is very much


alive. I believe that a country is free when it has a community in which voluntary service is desired and practised by so many people. We have so many institutions today where the idea of voluntary service has thrived and is thriving. I believe that this is one of the marks of a healthy society.
However, with reluctance and with regret, the decision to disband the volunteer services became inescapable once we decided that substantial economies were necessary. There is nothing stopping the offer of voluntary services either in this field or in others. If volunteers wish to offer their services, there are such invaluable institutions as the Red Cross; I have mentioned already the W.R.V.S.; there is St. John Ambulance Brigade. There are a number of institutions where voluntary service of this nature, the desire for which has been so marked in the letters I have received, can still be given. I hope that many of the volunteers will feel that it is worth their while doing it.
The maintenance of sizeable volunteer services for one of the many roles in civil defence which they fulfilled would be out of scale with what is required by the policy we decided to adopt; that is, to continue with planning, to maintain a core of knowledge and expertise, and to preserve existing operation of assets.
Therefore, the intention is to disband the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service on 31st March next. This will require the revocation of the Civil Defence Corps Regulations, 1949, an amendment to the Civil Defence (Fire Service) Regulations, 1949, and comparable action in relation to the Scottish Regulations. This will relieve authorities of their statutory obligation to maintain forces. I emphasise the phrase, their statutory obligation to maintain forces. Revocation orders for this purpose will be before Parliament and will require affirmative Resolutions.
I would like to deal with the detailed point that has been put to me by many civil defence volunteers, which is: can we not allow the services to continue if they offer to serve without bounty or other direct payment. I think all of us would welcome the spirit in which these offers were made. It is not a pleasant task to have to decline unselfish offers of

service of this sort. Unfortunately, in this service it is the cost of the administration and the expense resulting from the use of premises and equipment rather than the direct payments to volunteers—which were small enough—which amount to by far the greatest part of the cost of the two services. Volunteers' payments, indeed, account for less than 10 per cent. of the total expenditure with which we are now dealing, and I fear there is no avoiding the conclusion that offers of this kind, however generous, simply cannot produce the savings which I am required to make.
I come to the point that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marlyebone put to me, that the continued existence of these services can, to some extent, be justified by their value in various peace-time disasters. I looked very carefully at this aspect of the matter. It is certainly true that both the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service have readily come forward when disasters have occurred, and the Government and country have reason to be grateful for their help. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned a number of them. I have only personal experience of Aberfan, where I happened to be on the night on which it took place, and the civil defence was certainly much in evidence there. doing an excellent job. But there were a great many other services doing an excellent job there at the same time. Indeed, it was a remarkable combination of voluntary effort which seemed to grow almost spontaneously. I fear I am forced to the conclusion that there is no evidence really to suggest that the existing services and the peacetime volunteer bodies are inadequate to deal with these disasters, as and when they occur. As I say, we are very appreciative of the help that has been given. I certainly do not want to sound ungracious, but I cannot see a justification for expenditure on the level of £25 million to £27 million that would be needed to maintain an organisation of the size of the Civil Defence Corps primarily or solely for the purpose of dealing with peacetime disasters.
Let me return to the civil defence responsibilities of local authorities. The reduction in expenditure which the Government is making will mean drastic cuts in the numbers of staff employed on


civil defence duties. There are about 2,400 local authority staff at present so engaged in Great Britain—in the main, civil defence officers, deputies, instructors and supporting staff. I know local authorities are under heavy pressure to reduce their staff overall; they have much the same pressures as I was describing at the beginning of my speech, but I know they will be as sympathetic as possible about offering alternative employment to as many of these civil defence employees as they can reasonably absorb. For those who lose their jobs, compensation arrangements will be made, similar to those made for staff displaced as a result of the reorganisation of local Government.
Then, as regards the Auxiliary Fire Service, there are some 270 full-time officers employed on organisation and training. The expectation is that these 270 will be absorbed into the regular brigades. There will still be a need for some full-time civil defence staff. The intention is that local authorities should continue civil defence planning at the minimum level needed to enable more active preparations to be resumed, if necessary, without too much loss of ground. We are now discussing with the associations of local authorities how this should best be done, within the much smaller amount of money that will be available. and how far it may be possible for local authorities to share planning staff in order to keep down costs.
I must emphasise that, contrary to what is said in the Motion, local authorities will have continuing civil defence responsibilities, although they will be less onerous. As I have just said, they will be called upon to continue with a certain amount of planning activity of an administrative character and continue to be responsible for instructing and advising the public, making provision for housing and feeding the homeless, and for the first-aid care of casualties. They will also be asked to preserve the operational control buildings and their communications which form part of the system of civil defence control at various levels of government—a system which is being retained on a care and maintenance basis.
The Home Office and the other Government Departments will continue to provide local authorities with support and guidance in civil defence matters.
The Civil Defence Staff College at Sunningdale and the training schools at Falfield and Taymouth Castle will be closed as measures of economy, but the school at Easingwold will be kept open, and activities and instruction will be centralised at that school. It is proposed to provide there background and general planning courses for those having continual planning responsibilities in local and central government, essential industries and the police and fire service. There will also be training courses for the National Warning and Monitoring Organisation. Easingwold will provide a venue for studies and conferences on civil defence matters for those retaining a concern with civil defence—government departments, local authorities, the police, the fire service, the Armed Forces, the public utilities and industry. The Home Office civil defence staff are being withdrawn from the regions and there will be reductions at headquarters, where the Department will maintain a planning staff. When we have settled with local authorities the level of their own planning staffs, we can determine how best to provide support and supervision from the centre.
The police will continue to have special responsibilities in emergencies, both in peace and in war, and will maintain planning and training to cope with these, and the reorganisation and amalgamations of the police services that are taking place at the present time will undoubtedly assist in this direction.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Home Secretary explain, when he talks about the regions, does this mean Scotland will be left bereft of any civil defence administrative region at all?

Mr. Callaghan: No, I can assure my hon. Friend, that the Secretary of State for Scotland would not permit that to happen, and I am sure that if he asks him he will give him the details of what is proposed.
Although the Auxiliary Fire Service is to be disbanded, and further stockpiling of emergency fire equipment is to cease, emergency fire preparations are not being abandoned. The regular peacetime fire service will continue emergency planning, and there will still be some central training at the Fire Service Training


College at Moreton-in-Marsh, given to selected officers of the brigades in order to keep alive the doctrines developed for the organisation and deployment of the emergency fire service in war. Stocks of emergency fire service equipment will be retained in store.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the Home Secretary, because I am sure he is as tired as I am, but I think he is saying no Scottish Minister is going to explain the position in Scotland.

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend's tiredness has meant his vision is not as acute as usual. The Under-Secretary for the Scottish Office is here and would, of course, be very happy indeed to help my hon. Friend in anything he wishes to know.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is he to speak?

Mr. Callaghan: That is not a matter for me.
We shall also be preserving the Warning and Monitoring Organisations, which includes the Royal Observer Corps. It is complete and can quickly be brought to operational readiness. It requires a substantial degree of technical skill and the Government's view is that it should not be disbanded. Even after the disbandment of the voluntary services, the country will still have considerable physical and human assets ready for use.
I have so far mentioned services which are the concern of the local authorities because the Opposition Motion refers to these, and also the services with which, as Home Secretary, I have a direct concern. But there are other aspects of civil defence which have not been getting so much attention, but which are important in relation to the level of activity for which we are seeking the approval of the House. There are a number of Government Departments and essential industries and services which have been developing plans and physical preparations over the years to improve their capacity to operate under war conditions. I give two or three examples: plans and preparations have been made for broadcasting, for water supply which is, naturally, of the very greatest importance, for food supply and for the keeping open of

ports and shipping. All these plans will be kept up to date and existing physical assets will be maintained. The Government's view of their present responsibilities is that we are to preserve the existing physical assets—equipment, control premises and communications; and both central and local government, and essential industries and services, will continue with planning. Our object will be to identify those items on which we must move quickly if an emergency seems likely to arise and to ensure a coherent approach to the job by all the authorities and interests concerned.
The Government regret that it has been necessary to take the harsh and painful course of accepting a lower state of readiness in our civil defence preparations, but this decision should not be misunderstood. We have not decided that civil defence as a whole is useless. What we have done is to look again at the level at which we can afford to maintain our activities at the present time.
I ask the House to consider the terms of the Government Amendment to the Opposition Motion. In that Amendment, we invite the House to express its appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service for their services to the cause of civil defence; but we also invite the House, while recognising the value of the contribution of these voluntary services, to note with approval the Government's decision, in the light of the economic and the international situation, to reduce the level of civil defence. I maintain that in the situation with which we were faced there is good sense in the balance which we have struck, and I ask the House to approve the Government Amendment.

5.42 p.m.

Sir Gerald Wills: I support the Motion moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). It so happens that I represent a constituency which is largely rural and which does not contain any of the larger conurbations where one might expect a very considerable interest and apprehension to be caused by the possibility of nuclear damage and nuclear warfare. Nevertheless, I have been amazed by the amount of feeling which has been created in my constituency by the Government's proposals, which are


the virtual disbandment of the civil defence and the Auxiliary Fire Service.
So great has been that apprehension and concern that I have received a petition from one end of the constituency signed by 300 people, I have sent it to the Home Secretary. At the other end of the constituency, a group of people have asked me, "Can we do the work voluntarily?" They have asked whether they can do that, but from what the Home Secretary said it seems unlikely. They have been strenuously occupying themselves over the years in civil defence duties and they are most concerned that their organisation should be in some way retained. Alternatively, they hope they may be given some way of working as a voluntary organisation which would give them a chance to do much the same sort of work which they have done in the past. This would form a foundation for the future and a safeguard for the present.
There is no doubt at all that the decision virtually to do away with the civil defence organisation—however we may dress it up it is pretty well being thrown away by the actions of the present Government and with it the Auxiliary Fire Service—has shocked the general public and profoundly depressed all those who have given voluntary service to the community. They have helped and they like helping their fellow citizens when the need should arise. It may be, although I do not think it is so, that Her Majesty's Government take the view that all danger from nuclear attack has ceased. I did not get that view from what the Home Secretary said, but if the Government do take that view perhaps they will tell us. Perhaps they will tell us why they take a view so contrary to that of all other countries in Europe.
If there are no grounds for such a view why should we disband or virtually do away with this most valuable body of men and women who have been trained, some for many years, to deal with emergencies? This nucleus of trained volunteers is of immense value in many emergencies which may arise not only from the possibility of war or nuclear attack. I well remember the distress and loss of life and peril caused by a number of serious floods in the West Country part of which I represent. I well remember the great value of the services to which we are referring to the community not

only in the far west but also in my constituency. I remember the tremendous help given by the very people whom the Government wish to disband.
They could give the help because they were organised and ready and knew their job. It is all very well to say that there will always be people—thank God there always will be—prepared to serve in the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance and many other voluntary organisations but there must be someone who can collate and co-ordinate that help. That is what the civil defence organisation is able to provide. It may be that acts of God may happen which will need their services in the countryside. It must have been incredibly depressing to those who only a year or so ago were encouraged by Lord Stonham to go on with their jobs in civil defence when they heard from the Prime Minister towards the end of January that he did not want them any more. This is a very sad thing.
Despite all that has been said I do not think this will entirely happen because many of these people will get together to work voluntarily. If they wish to do so I hope that the Home Secretary will think again and give every encouragement to them. He said that there is a fair amount of equipment at headquarters. They might like to look over it from time (o time and to keep themselves familiar with it. If the equipment and depots are there why should they not look it over and keep themselves voluntarily—I emphasise voluntarily—in touch with affairs and with all that is going on in civil defence? Local authorities will not now be required to undertake many of the duties they were previously required to do but in an emergency those activities would be required very quickly. They would be required for clearance work, rescue work and the maintaining of communications. Knowledge about this is in the minds of civil defence workers. We should make the best use of it while we can and we should continue to make the best use of it.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government do not take the view that the nuclear all-clear has been sounded and that no disaster like that is likely to happen. That would be an optimistic view although I hope that nothing such as that ever will happen. In the meantime I hope that the Government will realise that it is utterly


wrong as many of my hon. Friends and I consider it is that this great reserve of good will and effort provided by the Auxiliary Fire Services and the civil defence, and still fortunately provided by the W.R.V.S. and many other voluntary services, should be thrown away; for once we have done that it will be very difficult to bring those services together again. A year or two years' gap will take a tremendous time to put right again so I ask the right lion. Gentleman the Home Secretary not to destroy all this because it is going to be difficult to rebuild.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw: It is always a sad day when one witnesses the end of any voluntary organisation, and today is no exception. I shall be supporting the Government on this Motion tonight, and I shall explain why later. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) is perhaps deceiving himself when he says that many people are up in arms about this. It is easy to get this impression. As one who has served in voluntary services for many years I would say that it is easy to think that one's own organisation is the be all and end all of everything. Those people who are actively employed in these organisations are disturbed, but I do not think the rest of the country concerns itself whether they exist or not. That is the unfortunate thing about defence forces. Nobody wants them in peace time, because they have to pay for them. It is only when war comes that they want to know why we have not provided them.

Sir G. Wills: I think people want them very badly when they are in distress.

Mr. Crawshaw: That is the point I was making. It is only when the emergency arises that people ask where our defence forces are. To that extent I think it is wrong to say that there is a great lack in the country. Within the organisations themselves that may well be so. My right hon. Friend was probably right in saying that there is less possibility today of the civil defence forces being used in any nuclear engagement. We hope he is right.
One of the reasons why I intend to support the Government is that I believe that at last we are getting our priorities right. During my years in the House

I have always maintained that this country can lose a war only in Europe. It can lose a battle in the Far East, as we did in the last war, but it is in Europe that we can be defeated. The fact that we are going to concentrate these forces in Europe makes a war in Europe less likely, and there is less possibility of needing our civil defence forces.
My right hon. Friend is deceiving himself when he says we are going to have a great deal of time to bring these forces into operation. When they go now I think we have seen them go for good until the crisis is upon us. It is quite wrong to get the impression that we would be able to get them back overnight. If any crisis arises it would not help the crisis to have to build up forces in the country. It is arguable, but my view is that we would not be able to do so in time.

Mr. John Farr: The hon. Gentleman said we lost a battle in the Far East and won a war in Europe. We also lost a battle or two in Europe.

Mr. Crawshaw: We got driven out of the places the party opposite say we ought to keep our forces in. It is vital for the defence of our country. We were not defeated in these islands and while we maintain our defence here we can ultimately win. We lost the war in Malaya, but eventually we got back again, but only because we managed to hold on to these islands. If it had been the opposite way round it would not have been much good hanging on to Singapore and other places.
I understand—and perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us when he is closing the debate—that talks are going on with the Territorial Army, with the Duke of Norfolk and so on. Could he give some indication what stage these talks have reached and whether any progress has been made?
I am complaining that these forces are expensive to maintain, but I believe we make them unduly expensive by saying there must be so much footage per unit and so many permanent staff. This is not the way to run cheaply a civil defence or any other organisation. Our drill halls are often under-employed and closed on some niehts in the week instead of concentrating one unit there per night. In


order to cut down on the expenditure these are the things which we should have tried before we disbanded.
Why was it not possible to organise some scheme whereby the auxiliary fire services could have operated at the regular stations on so many nights a week? I believe that we have not examined the problem properly. We have been paying tribute to the auxiliary services. I might mention the auxiliary fire service in my constituency and the diversity of work in which they have been engaged. On five nights a week they augment the regular services at a different station. They have assisted in two fires on ships in Liverpool Docks; they have assisted the police in dragging ponds when children have been missing, and helped in airport disasters. They maintain a 24-hour service and they can man six emergency forces at any time of the night or day. I do not believe the public appreciates this when we are talking about costs.
I know that the Department is out to make a cut, but when I was engaged in the Territorial Army I seemed to notice that the people who made the cuts always managed to maintain their own Department. If a case was to be considered between the Territorial and the Regular Army the Regular Army made cuts in the Territorial Army, and one wonders whether there is a vested interest in doing this. I am not certain that the cuts we make are the best ones to be made. Rather than the Department saying where the cuts should come I would rather that other people might have examined other means whereby cuts could be made.
The right hon. Gentleman paid great tribute to the fact that this country is able to produce these volunteers. This has been so in the past. Many of the volunteers have given their service and their time unstintingly, without hope of reward, and now we are saying "Thank you very much, your services are no longer required". We have done this with the Regular Forces. I do not believe it is possible to maintain happy forces unless there is some security of tenure. They have not had that over the last few years—and it does not apply only to this Government. We ought to bear this in mind when talking about an endless fund of good will. We are inclined to dissipate

this fund. This is something we ought to look at closely when we are examining these voluntary organisations.
At a time when we are deploring the fact, rightly or wrongly, that so many younger people are wanting only something for themselves and are not prepared to give anything, when we are spending millions of pounds on youth services to keep them off the streets and millions of pounds on community services, we should realise that here are people not asking us to spend money on them. They are anxious to give their services to the country. They arc not asking for luxurious clubs but only for somewhere where they can meet and do the jobs which they feel are of benefit to the country. Perhaps we get our priorities a little wrong when we start spending millions of pounds on things which we say are necessary to keep people off the streets while throwing overboard people who are giving their services and hoping that they will look after themselves somehow or other.
I know that there are many excellent organisations, such as the St. John Ambulance Brigade. I have had many years of active employment with them. I could go through a whole list, but we must remember that people who join the Territorials and the Fire Service are looking for something a little different from the St. John Ambulance Brigade, though I do not mean to disparage the Brigade. They want a little excitement in attending fires and so on. The Territorials and the Fire Service cater for a different type of person from the other voluntary organisations. In the same way, the uniformed organisations cater for something different from the youth clubs. There should be a good mixture of all these organisations. We are now getting rid of two or three organisations, and other organisations will not be able to take the people who are being dispossessed of their present jobs.
I said that I would explain why I support the Government. In the past two days many people have said that they were going into the Division Lobbies on the Commonwealth Immigration Bill with heavy hearts. I heard many of them say that, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend went into the Division Lobby with a heavy heart. Tonight he has got me going into his Lobby with a


heavy heart. I did not go into his Lobby in the past two nights—I went into the other one. So now it is my turn to have a heavy heart.
I want to explain why I support the Government now, because 24¼ years ago we had a debate on the Territorial Army and I then refused to support them. I think that the issue today is different. At that stage we were cutting down our reserve forces without in any way seeking to reduce our commitments. Today I believe that this country will be stronger by throwing overboard some of our commitments and concentrating our defence where it is required.
What we are voting on tonight is part of a package deal. I stood in this very spot two or three months ago and be-laboured my Government for lack of guts and determination in not facing the financial situation which existed then and not carrying out remedies. Therefore, it would be unbecoming of me to say tonight, now that they are to carry out the remedies, that because I do not like this particular one I shall not support it. If there is a package deal one can throw the whole package overboard and say that one will not support it, but if one supports it one is honour bound to support the disagreeable parts. Therefore, I shall to that extent very reluctantly go into the Lobby tonight to support the Government.
But that does not alter the fact that I believe that this is a cheeseparing of what I think are vital services, not necessarily because I believe that they will save this country in time of nuclear war, albeit they have a vital part to play even then, but because I believe that the people concerned represent some of the best that this country produces. It is difficult to get people of that type trained in an emergency, and once we get rid of them they will not be there if the emergency arises in another six months, because it will be impossible to train them.
I hope that this is not the end of these voluntary organisations. Perhaps thought can be given to how they might be employed in existing services.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I shall not try to deal with all that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw)

said. As I have on many past occasions, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the sentiments he expressed. I think that I can safely say that there is no one on this side of the House who has not in the past admired him for having had the courage of his convictions. But between the convictions and sentiments he expressed and his announcement of his intention to support the Government tonight, I found a certain logical difficulty, a non sequitur, which surprised me in all the circumstances, because if one analyses the case which the Home Secretary has made for the cuts and the disbandment of the civil defence volunteers, one finds that it rests on two bases.
First, the Home Secretary says that we must make economies. That is quite right, and everyone would applaud and approve that. He said that the Cabinet looked to see where they could properly make the economies and then he said—what a fortunate coincidence it would be if we could accept it!—" I found that the civil defence organisation, to which so many volunteers have given their time, resources and public service over so many years, is really no longer necessary because the world is so much safer now than it was." If that were true, we should accept it as a remarkable and fortunate coincidence. But if it is not true, is shows in the right hon. Gentleman and his Government a most remarkable capacity for self-deception.
It is the latter view of the action taken that we should adopt. If the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we no longer really need those services—and if we analyse it, that is what he is saying—he is going back on everything his predecessor and other Ministers in the Home Department have said over the past two or three years.
I should like briefly to refer to some of the things that have been said, because it is in the light of them that we should consider the Government's action now. When making a statement to the House on home defence in February, 1966, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I am now able to state in general terms the outcome of the Government's review of home defence.
that was only two years ago—
We have concluded that, despite the reduction in the risk of a nuclear conflict, we


cannot discontinue civil defence preparations. There is always the possibility of war arising from misunderstanding or miscalculation; and we cannot be certain about the future spread of nuclear weapons.
Our studies confirm that, in the event—fortunately unlikely—of a nuclear conflict,"—
Note the distinction. First it is said that these preparations are necessary for conventional conflict, and then for a nuclear conflict—
Sensible Civil Defence preparations could do much to save lives, to relieve suffering and to help the nation to survive as an organised entity. But there is a limit to what we can afford by way of insurance against this risk."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1089–90.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to announce cuts then being made but at least he was keeping the organisation in being and he enunciated his reasons for doing so.
What changes does the Home Secretary postulate as having occurred which have changed the situation since then? A war is raging in the Far East. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the possibility of a détente but it is not on a possibility of détente that we should run our affairs. We must face risks as they stand, and in the light of those risks as they stand I say, as the present Chancellor said two years ago, that we cannot afford to disband the civil defence force.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that we were going to do away with the civil defence organisation nor that we were going to discontinue civil defence preparations, and that i3 correct. Today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained that we are not doing away with civil defence preparations.

Mr. Grieve: That is what the hon. Gentleman says. It is for the House to consider the accuracy of that statement in the light of what the Government are doing. I have no doubt of its conclusions. The quotation I have given was from a statement as long ago as February, 1966, but one does not have to go back: as far as that to see views of the same kind being expressed by the present Chancellor. On 14th December, 1966, he spoke again about civil defence. He said:

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about civil defence, and particularly about the future of the Civil Defence Corps.
After consultation with the local authority associations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided that the Civil Defence Corps should be reorganised and substantially reduced in numbers.
That he went on to do, because the Corps and civil defence in general have always been among the whipping boys of the Government. Of course, the Government always pay lip-service to the services rendered by this gallant band of volunteers. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
We are greatly indebted to the members of the Corps. Their new role will be of great importance, and there will be a continuing need to attract people of high calibre, with qualities of leadership.
Expressing the need to continue that recruitment, he went on
The Government believe that by carrying out the measures I have indicated they will retain on the most economical basis a pattern of civil defence preparations which, if there were a nuclear attack on this country, would enable many millions of lives to be saved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1966; Vol. 738, c. 458–9.]
What has happened between December, 1966, and this leap day of this leap year which has made it no longer necessary to provide against the possible loss of millions of lives in the event of a nuclear conflict? But we need not even go back as far as December, 1966. In another place, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, speaking as a Home Office Minister as recently as March, 1967, less than a year ago, said that there were some who would say that, in a nuclear disaster, nothing would avail the people of the nation to survive but that the Government totally rejected that view.
I ask again what has happened, save that the Government have got the country into a first-class economic mess, between March, 1967, and now which in any way changes that situation. The answer is that absolutely nothing has happened to do so. The key to what has happened is to be found in that new code expression in the jargon of today, "a package deal". This appears to be a deal in which all Ministers go into the Cabinet Room and each is called upon to make some sacrifice—not a personal sacrifice, of course but a sacrifice of what their


Ministries require for the good of the nation. Some things are more legitimately sacrificed than others, but I believe the defence of this country and the saving of the lives of its people in a nuclear attack are the very last things to be sacrificed in any package deal.
The truth of the matter is that, if this is the way in which the Government of this country is conducted, a package deal is the very negation of good government because good government demands that sacrifices and cuts shall be made where the great interest of the nation demands that they should be made. I can make suggestions to hon. Members opposite about where cuts should be made—I have made them in previous debates. But my submission again is that the last place where they should be made is in safeguarding the lives of the people of this country and at a cost which is minimal compared with the hundreds of millions of £s being budgeted for in the expenditure for the coming year, and in such costly ideological conceptions as the Land Commission and the Transport Bill.
Mine is one of those constituencies where those who have given their services to civil defence are most anxious to continue on a voluntary basis. I would not extol my constituency particularly in that regard. Such offers have been made from all over Britain and are a tribute to the people who have made them. I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider his position. All that is being asked is that these volunteers should have the use of civil defence headquarters, which are not going to be exploded by the Sappers or by the Royal Marines, and that they should continue to have the use of their uniforms.
The Home Secretary said that nevertheless expenses would fall upon local authorities by way of administration and so on. Has he consulted them to see in what way the costs of such administration could be cut if voluntary service of this kind were allowed to continue? Perhaps we can have an answer in due course. Whatever the answer is, I submit that for the overwhelming needs of the country, in language which has been pointed out by Minister after Minister and which I have quoted—many other quotations could be made—and for the

spirit of voluntary service in the community as well, this is the last place where cuts should be made and the Government deserve censure for having made them.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth, (Mr. Crawshaw) has said that he will go into the Lobby for the Government with some reluctance but will nevertheless go. I shall go with great enthusiasm, I am happy to say. But I am perhaps supporting what the Government are doing rather than what the Motion says they are doing. That distinction should be made. It is important in giving support to the Government that one should realise the consequences of their action rather than the qualifications which they perhaps feel it necessary to make to those consequences.
Enthusiasm for civil defence exists in inverse ratio to the urbanisation of the population concerned.

Mr. Grieve: No.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that, generally speaking, this is the case.

Mr. Younger: Has not the hon. Gentleman heard of the magnificent part played by the civil defence in Glasgow in the hurricane two months ago?

Mr. Jenkins: I will come to that in a moment. I was rather impressed by the statement made by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) when he spoke of the great enthusiasm for civil defence in that part of the world, which I would think could hardly be regarded as a highly urbanised society.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: While we are talking about those who helped remedy the damage done in Glasgow, are not the plumbers and the slaters just as much entitled to a vote of thanks as anyone else?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is of course correct. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred to civil defence as an insurance premium. I was once an insurance man. One pays an insurance premium to get cover. No cover is possible in


terms of civil defence and this is a fraudulent premium. The cover is not possible and the Government's decision is a recognition of this fact. It is a decision to stop paying the premium because the cover, in the nature of things, cannot be provided. If an insurance company, under these circumstances was to charge a premium for such a policy it would be rightly prosecuted for fraud. It would be a fraudulent proposition.
I greatly welcome the decision tonight because it brings to an end a period of national fraud, in which the population has been sold a false bill of goods, which most of them never accepted because they did not believe in civil defence. I sometimes questioned whether my hon. Friends whose duty it was to present the case really felt as enthusiastic about this as they have hitherto made out, as they have been able to present to us by their skill.
Civil defence in the nuclear age was a factory for the propagation of the most dangerous of illusions—the illusion that it is possible for an industrial society to survive nuclear war. Millions of pounds have been spent in fostering this illusion. If one gives a man a job to do and pays him to do it, he has to assume that it can be done. His is not to reason why. The object of the exercise of civil defence is the survival of the community. The man who has the duty of being responsible to the community for carrying out civil defence in the urban and the country areas must therefore assume survivors.
To make the whole job credible there must be millions of survivors if the job is to be worth doing. So, millions of survivors are assumed. The proposition works from that end, not the other. It is necessary for there to be survivors in order to justify the existence of civil defence. That is why we have had these millions of survivors—they are an act of faith, necessary for the continued existence of this organisation.
Now that the Government have put it to rest, or whatever phraesology they care to use for its virtual and practical disappearance, we will hear rather less of civil survival. Over the years, Ministers of all parties have contradicted themselves in and out of office. Any responsible Minister outside the Home Office

will tell one that in the nuclear age the possibility of any large number of survivors is remote indeed.
As we have already heard, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) dwelt on this in 1965, although lie has tried to explain it away. I do not think that it was a very convincing explanation. The right hon. and learned Member was talking of the excessive vulnerability of this island in a nuclear age. He was saying that maybe the Americans would survive, maybe the Chinese, maybe people in other countries but and he repeated himself, he said that he did not know whether these people would survive all over the world, but one thing that he knew was that we would not survive. That is an unequivocal statement and to suggest that in some way he was talking of the survival of the nation or the survival of individuals is unconvincing.
Another reason why I found the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation unconvincing is because he is a very ebullient Member as well as an honest one, and he does not allow himself to be misrepresented. In the debate about which I have spoken my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, of the right hon. and learned Member:
I do the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone the credit of believing that he was sincere in what he said in the last five minutes of his speech. He talked very seriously indeed about the need for world government. He talked very seriously about what would happen if any thermo-nuclear exchanges took place. He understands these facts. He knows that if we ever loose off this weapon, life on this island would be extnict within three days.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 1660.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman would have jumped up and said that my right hon. Friend was misrepresenting him, if this had been so. He would have said that my right hon. Friend was not saying what he had said.

Mr. Hogg: I do not like, and I do not think that it is fair, to interrupt Ministers' perorations. Certainly the Minister did not misrepresent me, but he attributed to me knowledge which I certainly would not have accepted.

Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is of course also a model of courtesy, but whether he would allow his courtesy to overcome his other


instincts on that occasion, is a question which all of us will beg leave to doubt.

Mr. Crawshaw: I was interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. If he assumes that in a nuclear attack everyone is killed, there is no object in civil defence. But would he not agree that whatever devastation there is, there are bound to be fringe areas of the country where there will be people injured and trapped, who may die within two to three weeks from radiation? In the meantime they are there, injured and trapped. Is there no need for civil defence workers from outlying areas, not beaten down, to relieve the agony of these people?

Mr. Jenkins: I will deal with this in a moment, because I have considerable sympathy with that point of view. This is the important argument to be put forward in favour of the retention of some form of civil defence.
The consequences of putting a Minister into the Home Office in the past has been that, having been as devastatingly honest as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in the case that I have quoted, they then start to blather about millions of survivors. This is a sort of Departmental record and it plays the same tune, whichever Ministerial doll happens to be acting as its ventriloquial dummy. I do not wish to be rude to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Ennals: I did not assume for a moment that my hon. Friend was referring to me.

Mr. Jenkins: I was referring to a doll in a ventriloquial sense, and in no other sense. We ought to welcome the fact that the dolls have rounded on their masters and smashed the records. As a consequence I find myself wholeheartedly and enthusiastically able to support the Government tonight.
For me, this is not a new matter. In 1958, when I joined the London County Council, I discovered that the civil defence responsibilities which devolved on that Council at that time were totally impossibe of fulfilment. The more I looked into it, the more convinced I became that we could not in fact do what we were supposed to do, and as a result in 1961 I moved, with the support

of the Leader of the London County Council at that time, a motion:
That this Council, while acknowledging that there is no practicable means of providing Londoners with effective defence against thermonuclear war, believes that it should take all precautions to organise rescue operations, in the hope that these might increase the chances of survival of anyone left alive after the first impact, and re-affirms its determination to press the Government for the best possible means to achieve this end.
This was carried, but had no noticeable effect on the Government of the day. An effort was made subsequently to reinforce it, and I moved a resolution which was carried at the annual conference of the London Labour Party:
This Conference supports the L.C.C. in acknowledging that there is no practicable means of providing Londoners with effective defence against thermonuclear attack, and calls upon the L.C.C. to publicise this fact widely and officially and so to inform the Home Secretary.
The resolution concludes with these words:
Conference calls upon Labour-controlled authorities in the Counties of London and Middlesex to adopt a more realistic attitude to civil defence by seeking to convert it into a Civil Emergency Force designed to deal with accidents and disasters.
In 1961 and 1962 we took the point that the work done by the Civil Defence Corps at that time was of value to the community, and everything which has happened since has proved this to be the case.
Why was it that the London County Council came to the conclusion that they could not in fact carry out the functions of civil defence? Some time ago they carried out a detailed investigation of what they were required to do, and in the course of this they assumed that a two-megaton bomb was dropped—conveniently!—in the heart of London, and they discovered that a single bomb of only two megatons, dropped in a central place in that way, could destroy beyond repair a large part of the country and cause damage throughout most of Greater London, besides giving rise to radioactive fall-out, mainly down wind, in the path of which people would have to stay under cover for two or more days to avoid sickness or death.
It adds up to a conclusive statement that any suggestion that it is possible to defend the people of this country against the consequences of a nuclear attack, even


of a minor kind, is illusory. We are therefore in a situation where the people of our country are exposed to the possibility of something which, if not extinction, is very close to it. In these circumstances, the argument against maintaining civil defence is very strong, because it involves the pretence of what is in fact an illusory situation, in which people will expect the possibility of defence and will act in the light of the possibility of surviving. It is this which I think is unjustified.
There was a N.A.T.O. exercise in 1962, which was partially designed to test the civil defence arrangements in the countries of the N.A.T.O. area. It was called off before it was finished, due to the dislocation of communications and to "unacceptable devastation" This included 15 million dead—theoretically, of course !—in Southern England. The editors ofDer Spiegel were arrested for reporting the consequences of the exercise in Western Germany. It was never reported in this country in any detail at all. The Government have recognised that the time has come to bring this farcical thing to an end.
I understand that nuclear weapons are only targeted on countries which possess them. The Government have got into an ambiguous position in this matter. There is something to be said for the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who suggest that if we have nuclear armaments in this country we should have some attempt at civil defence, even if we know that it is pretty hopless. That is a comprehensible argument.
The other proposition is that there is no such defence against nuclear war, and the logic of that is that we should rid ourselves of the possession of nuclear weapons on the ground that this is the last country which should possess them, because we are peculiarly unable to defend ourselves against them. We are exceptionally vulnerable. If there is one country in the world which should not possess nuclear weapons it is this one, and we should go the whole hog—I assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that no pun is intended—and get rid of nuclear armaments.

Mr. Hogg: I shall not vote for the hon. Gentleman next time!

Mr. Jenkins: And did you last time? My last word is this. Nuclear weapons are targeted on those countries which possess them. Ours are targeted by N.A.T.O., though we still retain the independent power to use them. We can obtain the full benefit of our abandonment of defence against nuclear war only by admitting that we are defenceless. Any other argument is senseless. The abandonment of nuclear defence must be followed by the abandonment of our nuclear rôle, and the sooner that is done the safer it will be for us all.

Mr. Blaker: I was waiting to hear how the hon. Member would deal with the problem raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw).

Mr. Jenkins: This is contained in the resolution which I read out, in which I recognised the desirability of the continued existence of a force calculated or able to help in industrial defence work. I support very much the idea which has been put forward, that we should encourage local authorities, and if necessary offer them financial help, to maintain in being a voluntary form of help.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Intervention: must be brief.

Mr. Jenkins: There is no defence against nuclear attack.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I am delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) says. He seems to be putting a case for the retention of civil defence.
I never expected to have grounds on which to congratulate the hon. Member, but I do so now. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) referred to a "package deal". I think there was indeed a package deal and I ask myself what were the ingredients in it, and whether they included this item in order to induce hon. Members opposite to accept prescription charges and the limitation on the supply of free milk to schools. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney, because he is having his cake and eating it at the same time. He is getting away with supporting the disbanding of civil defence but voting against the other elements in the package. But, with his customary directness and integrity, the hon. Member for Toxteth is


observing the package deal. It is not that I approve of the ingredients in the package, but I think that the speeches of those two hon. Gentlemen, taken together, are very revealing.
I do not congratulate the hon. Member for Putney on his naïve view that nuclear weapons are only targeted on countries which possess them. If he believes that, it is an interesting reflection on his state of military knowledge. Nor do I congratulate him on his reference to the "fraudulent prospectus". He must be one of the few people among those who think about these matters who believe that the prospectus is fraudulent. I do not know if he is aware of it, but the Soviet Union pays more attention to civil defence than any other country in the world.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nonsense.

Mr. Blaker: I know that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a great knowledge of these matters, but I wonder whether his knowledge is sound on that point, because I understand that compulsory civil defence training is received by every young man in the Soviet Union.
On Sunday, I had the privilege of taking part in a parade down Whitehall of 2,000 people representing 50 civil defence units from different parts of the country and including contingents of the Auxiliary Fire Service. In that connection, perhaps I might correct another of the comments of the hon. Member for Putney. Those units included very strong elements from Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, London, and Swansea. So much for his argument that enthusiasm for civil defence is particularly a rural matter.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him on a point. I did not suggest that enthusiasm for civil defence was absent among those engaged in it. However, urban areas are those in which civil defence is most under-manned.

Mr. Blaker: Again I question the hon. Gentleman's knowledge.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is a fact.

Mr. Blaker: When one takes account of the uncertainty about the future of

civil defence and the Auxiliary Fire Service, the enthusiasm and devotion of its members to their job has been remarkable. It has survived the uncertainty of the years between 1965 and 1967 when the whole concept of civil defence was under review. It survived the 25 per cent. cut in expenditure imposed at that time. There is still a determination to find some way of keeping their organisations together.
It is very wounding to be told, as these men and women have been, that they are to be disbanded in spite of their voluntary service. But they are still ready, regardless of what they see as a kick in the teeth from the Government, to try to find some way of carrying on. They have offered to do without their bounty. They believe that cuts can be made in training expenditure. They are prepared to service their own equipment. They think that it would be possible to economise in expenditure on buildings if only the Government showed a readiness to meet them half way.
It is sad to note the difference in attitude displayed by the Labour Government this time towards the willingness of these people to continue to be of service, with the attitude of the Labour Government in 1945. That Government suspended civil defence, but at that time they positively encouraged local authorities to keep alive the interest of the volunteers and look favourably on the possibility of finding them suitable accommodation in which they could assemble.
I am sure that the speech of the Home Secretary today will be a tremendous disappointment to the people, numbering nearly 100,000, engaged in civil defence, the Auxiliary Fire Service and the T.A.V.R. III.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the attitude of Labour Governments to Civil Defence. Is he aware that, for five years, I asked a Tory Government to provide a day for the discussion of civil defence, and did not get it?

Mr. Blaker: I was not aware of that, but I am not sure that it destroys my argument. Speakers have referred to the peace-time rôle of civil defence and the


A.F.S. That is important, but the predominant importance of these organisations rests in the war-time rôle and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) indicated, I believe that the Government's actions make war more likely rather than less likely.
In the last few months, we have seen the Government destroy the credibility of Britain in a peace-keeping rôle east of Suez. By disbanding the civil defence, they are sapping the credibility of Britain's defence in Europe. It is all very well to talk as if they are concentrating Britain's defence in Europe. If they destroy or seriously weaken the country's ability to defend itself in war on its own home ground. potentially hostile nations will say, These people have not got the guts."
It is ironical that in the very month that the full gravity of the cuts in civil defence have come home to us, we should be testing for the first time the Polaris missile. The Government are devaluing the utility of the Polaris force—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Now the hon. Gentleman is on to something.

Mr. Blaker: If I may say so, that is an interesting interjection, and I find the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire very interesting, as I found the speech of the hon. Member for Putney. They have an ulterior motive in attacking civil defence. I do not know if they were Aldermaston marchers—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Yes

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Yes.

Mr. Blaker: I suspected as much. Their objective is to persuade the Government to abandon the nuclear weapons which Britain possesses. The first step is to make Britain's civil defence useless. If Britain does not have a civil defence, the credibility of its nuclear weapons is weakened. The hon. Gentlemen are proving the argument that I have deployed.
Their objective is to get us into a situation where they can argue that it is quite incredible for Britain to be able, willing and prepared to defend ourselves because

we have no civil defence, so what is the point in having nuclear weapons—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a debate, and not a duologue. Other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to me. If he gets together with his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I suggest that he will find that his right hon. and learned Friend has given chapter and verse for our case.

Mr. Blaker: I do not accept that proposition. However, I think that we have had enough debate on that point, and I want to move on.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question about N.A.T.O. Only two months ago, in December, the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Conference approved a communiqué containing the following words:
Ministers…. approved a report on Civil Emergency Planning. Stressing the vital importance of such planning, they noted the progress which had been achieved and the tasks which remained to be accomplished.
Did the British Ministers represented at that meeting concur in the communiqué? Presumably, they must have. Did they mean what it said? If they did, may I ask what consultation has taken place with N.A.T.O. since December and what has been the result? Did they know at the time that they concurred in the communiqué what were the Government's intentions about civil defence? If so, was it not rather curious that they concurred in that communiqué? Or has the Government's decision about civil defence been cooked up since that conference in the second half of December?
Hon. Members have made a number of points about the possibility of war. Cuba has been referred to. I do not think that Berlin has been referred to. It is relevant too. We must remember that, being a member of N.A.T.O. we share the risks and responsibilities of all members. The question is not simply whether war against this country is likely, but whether war involving any member of N.A.T.O. is likely. It is quite possible for hon. Members to evolve scenarios involving a risk of war to this country perhaps by


miscalculation between the Soviet Union and the United States or perhaps involving incidents occurring on the wings of N.A.T.O.
The Home Secretary said that he had been studying closely the nonproliferation treaty. I will pass over the fact that he appeared to think that there are 18 national members taking part, which there are not, which perhaps casts doubt on his knowledge of what is going on, and come to the non-proliferation treaty. This is not something which will improve the situation concerning nuclear weapons. This is a desperate race against time to prevent the nuclear situation getting more dangerous still. It will not deprive the existing nuclear powers of their nuclear weapons.

Mr. Ennals: To be fair to my right hon. Friend, he referred to the draft having been submitted to the 18-Nation Disarmament Conference.

Mr. Blaker: Indeed, but I think that my point remains valid. I am giving the Home Secretary the point that perhaps the treaty will be signed. But even if it is signed, it will not abolish nuclear weapons.
I was interested that the Home Secretary did not want to be drawn into the question of Chinese nuclear capability. That is a relevant point, but he said that he had not time to go into it. He said that it was a by-path, or something to that effect. It is not a by-path. Every time, the West has been taken by surprise by the rapidity of Chinese nuclear development and her development of the means of delivery, and we may well be surprised again.
The Government seem to think that they will have six months' warning of any crisis. For reasons which have been explained, we do not believe that is the case. But, if they did have six months' warning, do they seriously believe that they will get the volunteers back? I should like the Under-Secretary to deal with this point. Do they expect the civil defence and A.F.S. volunteers to come back? They must realise that this is the second time this has happened to the civil defence in just over 20 years. It does not necessarily follow that if people are kicked in the teeth—that is what these people feel has happened—they will come

back readily simply because the Government say that in six months time there may be a crisis. The Government are not right to count on them coming back. It is not good enough for the Government to have names on a list somewhere in a drawer and expect that, if asked, they will all come back.
I now turn to the civilian rôle of the Auxiliary Fire Service. The line taken by the Under-Secretary has been that there is no peace-time rôle for the A.F.S. That may be the theory, but it is not the practice. The A.F.S. has been carrying out a peace-time rôle—

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennalsrose—

Mr. Blaker: I do not wish to give way again. The A.F.S. has been carrying out a peace-time rôle. In my own Division it has turned out 20 times or more in the last year to help the regular fire brigade.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman has referred to my theme and it is only right I should be entitled to correct him. What I have said on a number of occasions, including last Sunday when the hon. Gentleman brought the deputation to see me, is that the responsibility for fire cover in any part of the United Kingdom rests entirely with the regular Fire Service. My right hon. Friend and I have paid tribute to the additional services which have been rendered by the A.F.S., but it is established to train for war-time purposes, not for peace-time fire services which are the responsibility of the local fire service.

Mr. Blaker: I was not referring to the interview which the Under-Secretary kindly gave to myself and the deputation last Sunday. I was referring to an answer that he gave to a Parliamentary Question from me. I note what he has just said, but it is a fact that the A.F.S. has been doing a job in civilian conditions. Is this job not to be done in future, or. if it is, who will do it?
I have been told by one chief fire officer, who sent his regular forces to help at the time of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, that if the A.F.S. is disbanded he will not be able to do the same sort of thing again. That time the A.F.S. unit in his area stood by and was available in case of fires on their home ground. Therefore, he was able to send


his regular fire brigade to Cornwall. He would not be able to do that again if the A.F.S. were disbanded.
What will happen in similar circumstances in future if the A.F.S. has gone? The direct fire loss to this country is £90 million a year. Will this loss not get worse if the A.F.S. is disbanded without some organisation to do what it has been doing?
The Under-Secretary has referred on a number of occasions in the House to the fact that we call for civil defence to remain in being, but at the same time ask for economies. To anticipate what he might possibly be intending to say later, might I refer him to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) who said on 17th January, 1968, in col. 1817 of HANSARD, what we would cut to make savings, and the total amount of those cuts is greater than the total amount of Government cuts announced on 16th January.

Mr. Ennals: They are incorrect.

Mr. Blaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain in what way they are incorrect. But let him not assert that we are reluctant to propose any cuts.
The Government claim to be planners. At least they used to claim that. I find it hard to imagine that the Home Secretary, after his three years' experience at the Treasury, would still claim that he was much of a planner. However, there is a difference between his behaviour at that time and his behaviour now. Every time he fell flat on his face over the economic problems of the country so long as he was at the Treasury, he picked himself up and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Member, he must not widen the debate.

Mr. Blaker: I hope, Mr. Speaker, to make the point relevant in a short time. At least at that time the right hon. Gentleman continued to plan. The difference between then and now is that on this occasion the Government are not even pretending to plan for the contingency which up to now they, along with all other N.A.T.O. Governments, have regarded as vitally important to plan for.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. William Price: I find myself in the interesting and perhaps unusual position of supporting the Government. I have a sneaking suspicion that they have taken the right decision for the wrong reason and that, having done so, they are reluctant to admit it.
Perhaps I should make my own position clear. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), I do not belong to the extreme Left. I am not a pacifist. I have never been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Indeed, I accept many of the arguments put forward in the House in favour of a nuclear deterrent. One might ask, therefore, where I differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is simply because I believe civil defence to be a dangerous illusion—a sort of clever con trick played by Governments the world over in an effort to convince people that they might escape in a nuclear conflict.
I speak only for myself. I have no particular knowledge of nuclear warfare. That is a fact. I seek tonight to put the view of a fatalist. I have no desire to survive a nuclear war. I was under the impression that the Government had come to recognise my view, but I was disillusioned at Question Time on 15th February. I had heard that it was dangerous to come to the assistance of a Minister, and I learned my lesson the hard way.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was under considerable pressure from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Government's decision on civil defence, and I thought that it might be useful if I offered him some assistance. In my naivety I rose and put this question to him:
Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House are grateful for the fact that the Government have finally shed the dangerous illusion that there is some sort of defence against a nuclear attack? 
I received a curious answer. My hon. Friend said:
I cannot accept my hon. Friend's view. It is important that we should have both skill and training available and a system which can be reactivated if the danger were to re occur."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1553.]
If my hon. Friend is right, and if I am wrong, there is a defence in a nuclear attack. If that is the case, why are the Government tearing civil defence apart?

Mr. Younger: When the hon. Gentleman refers to defence against nuclear attack, does he mean some way of preventing an attack, or of preventing some of the population from its ill effects?

Mr. Price: I am talking about the ill effects. Is it because the Government can find no other way of saving £20 million? If this decision is based on purely financial grounds—and this is the case that I seek to make—they will quite rightly stand condemned by the people of this country. But if it is because there is no hope for civilisation in the event of a nuclear conflict, they should tell the people the truth. In fact they will be doing little more—and this is where we shall disagree—than confirming what the vast majority of people already suspect.
My hon. Friend gave the game away during an Adjournment debate on 22nd February. Asked how long it would take to reactivate the organisation, he replied:
It depends. No doubt it would take some months to bring together all the volunteers and organise the force again…."—[OFFICIIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 806.]
Is anyone seriously suggesting that any hostile nation would give us that much notice of attack? It is much more likely to be short, sharp, and disastrous, with the civil defence personnel, upon whom so many of our hopes are based, possibly being the first to be wiped out. How would the rest of us manage?
I know that many hon. Members on both sides believe that a nuclear attack would be preceded by months of intensive diplomatic activity during which civil defence plans could be put into action. I do not accept that view for one moment. What happened during the Cuban crisis? We had all that diplomatic activity, certainly not over months, but for a long period—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We did not.

Mr. Price: 2014;but we were stuck in the middle of it. The world was nearer to a nuclear conflict than it had ever been before. Did we, in that situation, put all our civil defence plans into operation? We did not. We sat back and did nothing.

Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend is wrong in his history of the Cuban

crisis. He was not here when Mr. Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister.

Mr. Price: Thank goodness.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That may be, but we did not get 20 hours' notice of the American attitude to Cuba.

Mr. Price: I am saying that the diplomatic activity, whatever the initial warning, took place over a period of a week to 10 days. We did nothing about our civil defence capability. We sat back and hoped for the best. I think that it was Bertrand Russell who said that civil defence was a "callous fraud" and he based his argument upon the fact that Governments were not prepared to spend enough money to make it more than marginally useful, but were trying to create the impression that there was a defence. This is what the Government are doing tonight. This is the crux of the matter.
I say in all sincerity that if hon. Gentlemen opposite can convince me that there is a defence, I shall join them in the Lobby. In fact, I will go further. I will join them in demanding from the Government the sort of expenditure that will make this defence credible. I see that one hon. Gentleman opposite agrees with me. At the moment we are doing neither one thing nor the other.
At the time of the Cuban crisis theEconomist talked about the £20 million in these terms:
This is a tiny premium to pay if the force is efficiently organised and if it could really do any good were catastrophe to come to this small, crowded, and (in nuclear terms) indefensible island. But is it—and could it?
In my opinion the answer to both those questions is "No". Why, then, do we deceive ourselves? Why not say to the people of the world that a nuclear war will mean the effective end of civilisation as we know it? Are Governments afraid that the reaction of people would drive them into real disarmament talks? Is that what is behind this reluctance?
There are no strong views about civil defence in this country. I have heard hon. Members saying that they have received masses of letters. I have not had one. The Government's decision has been met with derisory apathy, and I am afraid that it merely reflects the general


disinterest of our people. Local authorities always have difficulty in getting members to serve on Civil Defence committees, and corps are usually under strength.
One of the last stories that I did as a journalist before coming to the House was on a Civil Defence Corps in a county town in the Midlands. Its total active strength was one old lady. Civil defence is subjected to a great deal of unfair criticism. I believe this strongly. I know that some of my constituents regard it as a huge joke, a social get-together for those taking part, an occasional weekend on exercise, some holiday money, some free driving licences, and so on. These are the criticisms which, as a journalist, I have had to report over the years.
I do not accept those arguments. The real tragedy of the Government's decision is that thousands of civil defence workers, first class people—and I know many of them—who gave their time and energy to help provide a better society have now been told that they are not wanted. I believe that they are wanted. I would like to see the Government use these people, and this £20 million—it is no more than a conjuror's trick anyway—as a real effective integrated peace-time emergency force. Give them a rôle and not an illusion.
Perhaps I could spend a few moments looking at the realities of civil defence. Government manuals on this subject have done more than anything else to discredit the ideal of civil defence. Civil Defence Handbook No. 8, Emergency Feeding, contains some gems of advice. For example:
Food which is not being prepared by the cooks should be kept in a food store.
My wife keeps food in a food store.
If there is any doubt about food, it should not be used…. Water for washing-up and other cleansing operations must be labelled ' not for drinking '.
And there is a delightful paragraph headed, "Unburnable solids", which begins:
These include tins and bottles.
Some genius wrote that, though it would be difficult to know at whom his advice was directed.
Of course, I could have great fun quoting from the famous civil defence handbook "Advising the Householder on Pro-

tection against Nuclear Attack", which advised the whitewashing of windows. I will quote just one section to show the absolute futility of the whole affair. Under the heading of "Sanitation", we are told:
You should not rely on being able to use your W.C. There might not be enough water to flush it or the sewerage scheme might be damaged.
It recommends that we keep, among many other things, large receptacles with covers and improved seats for use as urinals.
I want to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, have they got these large receptacles at home? If not, and if they are sincere and honest about civil defence, why not? I should have liked to ask the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) from whose part of the world I come, "Please can I come along at the weekend and have a look at your receptacle? I am very interested. I may not want one, but it is just possible that my wife does."
There is an important matter which relates to my own area. I quote fromThe Timesof 30th January:
The Government is still considering the rôle of thousands of anonymous people who would run the country in an atomic war. In the west Midlands, there are about 200 who would sit out an atomic attack in deep shelters specially dug about the region. They would emerge to begin the task of reorganisation and life-saving. There is no room for wives and children in the shelters.
Who are the fortunate 200? How were they chosen? Can my hon. and learned Friend be sure that they will survive long enough to get into the shelters in the first place? Is it seriously suggested that 200 people could make a serious contribution to running a great industrial conurbation like the West Midlands? I know that one of the main purposes of civil defence is the organisation and replacement of day-to-day government, and they might be able to do the job better than we in this House. Certainly they would organise their affairs better.
Despite that, I believe that the Government have made the right decision, one which took courage and a willingness to face reality. I ask my right hon. Friend to take no notice of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are still living in a fantasy world of childhood dreams, of toy soldiers and battles we always won. Times have changed, and none of us here can foresee


the possibility of a nuclear war. One way to ensure that we are proved right is to convince the rest of the world, leaders and peoples, that there would be no future for any of us. I shall support the Government tonight with relish, because they have gone some way towards that objective.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) said that he was a journalist and I am sure that he was a good one, because his use of the document from which he quoted was very clever. It was a leg-pull and no doubt I could do much the same with a copy of the newly amended Standing Orders of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The instructions from which he quoted are the ideal. In the last war, instructions which seemed dotty at the time were found to be useful when things started falling, such as sticking paper on the glass. As we approached the Cuban crisis, my wife and I consulted the book about tinned foods and so on. That is its purpose for the average citizen.
The hon. Member also pulled the leg of the civil defence by talking about social get-togethers. Such things are a bonus for the organisation, but to use them as a reason for destroying the organisation is wrong. The organisation's strength is that the volunteers have great fun socially but also do a good job—

Mr. William Price: This was not my criticism. The criticism of the get together, free driving licences or lessons and many other things I have heard and reject.

Mr. Marten: I am glad that the hon. Member has said that.
He said that civil defence was a confidence trick and an illusion. One could quote examples—for instance, that those on the fringe of a nuclear attack would not be directly and immediately affected and that in these circumstances civil defence could save lives and make the last two or three weeks of the dying that much more comfortable. If civil defence is abolished, the education of people in all this will be abolished as well; and people injured, as I have described, could not be helped.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has gone, since I wanted to take his arm and walk with him down the road from Aldermaston to Trafalgar Square. He said that every nuclear Power was targetted by the enemy; but the non-nuclear Powers were not. When one realises that what he is saying is that West Germany, a non-nuclear Power, is not targetted by the Russians, one realises the gullibility of the C.N.D.
The Under-Secretary said earlier that we are not doing away with civil defence. That is an incredible statement. Without going back to the early hours of this morning, I must confess that we heard much the same thing about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, when we were told that it had nothing to do with racial discrimination, when, in fact, of course it had—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep to this debate and not revert to last night's.

Mr. Marten: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that we had enough of that last night.
In saying that we are not doing away with civil defence, some Ministers have lost the ability to talk with directness and a singleness of purpose. That remark stands matters on their head. I do not entirely blame the hon. Gentleman, since the example for this sort of talk comes from the top of his party.
Clause 4 of the Public Expenditure and Receipts Bill deals with compensation paid to those who will lose their jobs in civil defence. There will be an appointed day at the end of March, I think, and people will be compensated if they are still in the service on that day. But if they should leave beforehand, they may get no compensation. Many of these people are perhaps 50 years old or more and it is hard to get or change a job at that age. So if a man had an opportunity for a job before the appointed day, surely it is right that such a person could accept it without fear of losing his compensation. Therefore, my suggestion would be—and even if the Minister cannot answer it today I would be grateful if he can give it serious consideration—that the appointed day should be the day on which the Prime Minister announced the cuts to the House of Commons, after which all these men, who


have served so well in this service, became aware that they would be redundant. Clearly, at that age one has to search around and to take, very gratefully, the first job that comes along. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into that suggestion.
Much has been said about continuing civil defence in a voluntary way and, clearly, that has been dismissed by the Government as something which is simply not on. But the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary mentioned the question of other voluntary organisations such as the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Red Cross, etc. I am vice-president of my local St. John Ambulance Brigade unit and I know that much of the work they do is typical of the work done by some elements of civil defence.
I wonder if there is scope for looking at the work of organisations like the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the Red Cross to see whether we can put some civil defence work into these organisations and make a bigger, broader and perhaps more useful joint organisation for local disasters. If that is so, could we ask the Government to consider whether they would make an extra financial contribution towards this if the proposal should be found to be worth while and practical?
In Oxfordshire, of which I represent the northern part, the county council has estimated that once the civil defence organisation is completely run down there will be saving of £72,000 a year. That is a saving; but when one considers what has been put at risk for the people of my constituency by that saving one may find, as I find, that the risk is really an incalculable risk particularly when, as has been said so often today, we are allowing the skills and knowledge built up over the years to evaporate. That seems to me one of the most serious aspects of this whole thing.
We in Oxfordshire live in an area which is not very far from certain nuclear places. There was the case of the Windscale Reactor that blew off. There was fall out. If this should happen again, as it happened at Windscale, perhaps on a bigger scale, what organisation has the Government got to cope with such an emergency? There are nuclear power units where this may not happen but if,

for example, an armed aircraft should, by misfortune, crash into such a place and there was nuclear fall out, what would the Government do about that? These are the kind of matters which I feel could not have been thought through by the Government when they decided to make this relatively small cut.
There has been quite a lot of talk and argument in this debate on the question of the nuclear deterrent. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments but I believe one of the arguments for having the nuclear deterrent is that it prevents this country being blackmailed by another nuclear power. We come back, therefore, to the idea that the other nuclear power is going to blackmail us and force us to do something we do not want to do. But if our nuclear deterrent—and it is a deterrent—is credible then we are less likely to be blackmailed. But what the winding up of civil defence has done is to make our nuclear deterrent, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), less credible.
This is where we come back to what was said by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), because all along he and his friends in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament have wished to abolish the civil defence, purely because they wish our deterrent to be less credible because, in my view, they wish to weaken the standing of this country in the world. I do not know whether the answer to this is to be found in an interview given in in the Sunday Telegraphby the Lord President of the Council on 11th February in which he said:
I am convinced that ultimately Britain's role is to be a spokesman of the non-nuclear powers in relation to the super-powers.
If the Lord President of the Council, a high member of the Cabinet and an intimate colleague of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, is here expounding what is the long-term aim of this Government, then all this, of course, falls into a pattern; and the abolition of civil defence, which reduces the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, falls into the pattern of what the Government is aiming at—that we shall become a non-nuclear Power and the spokesman of the non-nuclear Powers.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary gave as his reasons for


winding up civil defence firstly, of course, the budgetary ones—the financial situation. That we accept; and the whole Government has accepted that the cuts and devaluation and the financial situation is entirely—and I repeat, entirely—their own responsibility. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, and the Prime Minister said on television, that it was a defeat—for their policies. That is fine. We accept that it is.
The second reason he gave was that the non-proliferation treaty was coming along nicely and would shortly be signed and therefore we had no need to go on with civil defence. If that is so, then, as I believe my right hon. Friend asked in…. opening, what is being done about civil defence by the other NATO countries who will also be in this…. nonproliferation treaty? Have they done the same? Have they taken the same decisions? The answer is no. I believe, therefore, that the House can dismiss, that reason given by the Home Secretary for winding up civil defence.
The third reason he gave was that tension in the world was being eased; and he said as long as the United States of America remains in Europe we are all right. But we have got out of the Far East and the Middle East because of a financial crisis. That was part of the package cuts. The Americans are having a financial and balance of payments crisis and it does not stop; it goes on and gets worse. Could there not possibly come a time when, for financial reasons, the Government of the United States takes the same steps as the British Government has taken and gets out of Europe? I am not saying that that is probable but it is a possibility and if that is so then the whole argument that tension in Europe has eased totally falls to the ground; so that I believe that we as a responsible Parliament can dismiss that argument of the Home Secretary as a rather silly excuse dredged up to try to pad out the real excuse, which is financial.
If we accept that the reason is financial then surely the logic of it is that this package deal and all these most troublesome things which have been fought out night after night on the benches opposite are only being done because the Prime Minister and his Government believe that

they are going to be successful; and we are told that by about 1970 or 1971 all will be well. We believe this, for reasons other than purely economic ones. But, if that is so, and if the reason for abolishing civil defence is financial then surely the logic is that when our economy is again booming, when we have the resources and feel well off—and if we dismiss the other contemptuous and spurious arguments—an assurance should be given that civil defence will be brought back when we can afford it.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I intervened briefly, having been stimulated into speaking by some of the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite. When listening to them, I have been reminded of the voluntary work which I have been doing for many years, particularly in the hospital service. In reminiscing, I assure hon. Members that I will not go nearly as far as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I merely wish to point out that voluntary work can be extremely valuable. For about 45 years I have been engaged in the hospital service, both as the chairman of hospital management committees and governor of hospitals.
I recall that in the early days of being a member of hospital management committees, medical representatives—they were called specialists then; we now call them consultants—would appear before us asking for permission to buy tremendously expensive pieces of equipment. They told us that many people would die if this equipment were not provided. We used to designate the procedure as "flapping the shroud in front of a lay committee", and I regret to say that the granting of those requests would have resulted in some extravagances which we could not afford then and which we cannot afford now.
I intervene not to discuss the financial implications but to comment on the speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw). Although the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth were somewhat different from those adduced by my two other hon. Friends, they were all on common ground, and I accept their premise.
I do not believe that we are serving the nation's interest by deceiving the public into believing that there is any real defence against a nuclear war. It might be possible for some lives to be saved and I hope I hat, in the unlikely event of a nuclear conflict, that would happen. However, with the structure of the civil defence system as we have known it up to now, I do not believe that it could make a significant contribution, although it would, of course, be of considerable help.
Last year we had a terrible aircraft disaster in the town which I represent, and many people were killed. At that time the House paid tribute to the fire services, the ambulance brigade, the hospital workers and the police. Perhaps I was responsible for our omitting to pay tribute to the Auxiliary Fire Services and the civil defence workers of the area who worked manfully during the disaster. I have since made searching inquiries and, from authentic sources, have obtained a record of the hours worked voluntarily by these people. Although these voluntary workers may have had club and social interests in belonging to those movements, they were available and, within minutes of the disaster, were on the spot. They played a noble part in trying to rescue people and in helping to maintain calm when panic might have broken out in the town.
It is against this background that the Government should consider the whole problem of organisations of this type. I will vote for the abolition of the Civil Defence Corps because I believe it to be an anomaly. However, I would prefer to be voting for the setting up of an emergency corps which, nationally and locally, would be available whenever a disaster befell the nation. In the past we have called on our civil defence and auxiliary fire service volunteers to do certain jobs for which they have not been trained. They perform those tasks remarkably well. However, it would be valuable if we had an emergency corps which was divided into representative branches and able to cope with, for example, the mercantile marine, traffic accidents on the roads and railways and even aircraft disasters like the one that occurred in my constituency.
I have promised the civil defence and Auxiliary Fire Service people in my con

stituency that I would put forward this view in the House. I hope that the Minister will set aside the advice he receives from what I regard as one of the most pernicious Departments of Government—not merely the present but former Governments—and consider this matter afresh. In making these remarks I have no desire to attack the officers of the Department. The trouble with the Ministry is that it is hidebound with tradition and conservatism—leaving aside the whole question of the Foreign Office. I hope that the problem will be looked at again with the idea of using those who are prepared to give their time voluntarily, but in a central organisation which would transform the present set-up into something really useful and which would be available for the nation at a moment's notice.

7.37 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: It is a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach), who is my neighbour. I am pleased to be associated with the remarks he made about the work that was done voluntarily at the time of the Stockport crash. That work was done by volunteers from both his and my constituency.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that they had not received any letters on this subject. I have received almost 30. A great many people in my area are interested in this subject and since the 100,000 inhabitants are all literate, nearly 30 of them decided to write to me. I freely confess that the letters have all been on one side. However, they have been written by people who have not been protesting violently about any change in the nation's attitude towards civil defence but have been pointing to their circumstances because they feel that, although they were doing something useful for the nation, that work is suddenly being cut off. They are saying, in effect, "If what we have learnt to do has been useful but is no longer useful, cannot we be taught to do something else that would be useful?" Public-spiritedness of that kind should not be frustrated. Perhaps some of the ways in which they have served have not been as useful as all that, but the fact remains that they have obtained great social and community benefit out


of doing the work, some of it genuinely useful.
I do not want to discuss what might happen in the event of a nuclear war and what part civil defence might have to play. I am not competent to make such a judgment. Even the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that the Government had to rely on the expert advice they received from the civil servants in the background on many aspects of this matter. That being so, a mere back bencher cannot hope to give a critical assessment of the technical points involved. I do not want to get bogged down in these arguments, nor do I believe that the average hon. Member can properly assess the strategic considerations involved.
In considering the question of civil defence generally, one must approach it in two ways. The first is to ask if it will be needed to the extent that it is said that it is likely to be required. This, too, is a purely speculative matter and I do not believe that any of us can answer that question with accuracy. I should like to feel that it will never be required, but one cannot say that with confidence. The other aspect is, if it is required, will it be of any use? If we could answer both questions with "No", we could say that the whole business is futile and there is no point in continuing with it, but I doubt whether we can say that, at least with the kind of conviction that has been suggested in this debate.
On the general question of whether there is a defence against nuclear attack, we have tended to think in the wrong way. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Putney that even the whisper of an idea that there could be a kind of defence would in some way have a damaging effect on the community. It was suggested that people would throw caution to the wind and peaceful folk would become warlike. That is a gross exaggeration. It would indeed be folly if those in charge of our public affairs and those who have to make crucial decisions about warlike gestures and so on, adopted a general assumption that a nuclear attack did not matter. It would be folly to talk in that way or to have the idea that there is such irresponsibility in the community.
We have to measure these things in terms of value to the people who rely upon them. It was suggested by an hon. Member opposite that this was a kind of fraud. I do not accept that. To bring together people who have a feeling that they can do something useful may not be of great practical benefit, but some kind of benefit is involved. It was suggested by the hon. Member for Rugby that if there were a nuclear war he would not want to survive. I am inclined to take the same view. If the world descended to that kind of thing it would be a kind of world that I would not want to live in. Nevertheless, when some people's lives are in immediate doubt their attitude becomes entirely different. People tend to cling on to life in a tenuous fashion. I do not say that this is a useless and profitless thing.
If the hon. Gentleman for Rugby takes the view that the world is so mad that he does not want to be in it and if I take that view, we are not entitled to judge the situation as from the point of view of others.

Mr. William Price: In view of what happened last night I think we have already taken that view.

Dr. Winstanley: We are getting to a stage in which an hon. Member addressing the House is almost as likely to fall asleep as those who are listening to him. I shall not therefore follow that point but I shall get on with the argument.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the hon. Members think of another point? We are very apt to talk about ourselves when making decisions about the effect of nuclear war, but we should also remember that the vast proportion of the population are not yet of an age to think along the lines the hon. Member is adopting. They cannot take any decision. We have to think of them.

Dr. Winstanley: Yes, I think of them, and I hope that we all constantly do so. I do not take the view expressed by some hon. Members on this side of the House. We are not discussing defence but civil defence, which is slightly different. I do not sleep any sounder in my bed because we possess a nuclear deterrent. I do not think it gives me any greater security, but we are not talking about


that, we are talking about civil defence and what should be provided.
As the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said, if we had such a catastrophe, it is possible that we would not survive. He explained that he used the term "we" in the sense of British society as a whole, but he also made clear that he thought individuals would survive in conditions of very considerable horror and suffering. Even if one is not able to assist them to survive for any length of time, some kind of training in the community as a whole would do a certain amount to reduce the suffering which would arise in those circumstances. I have taken the view for some time that civil defence is in itself a very marginal thing. It may help people on the fringe of such a catastrophe, or in a lesser catastrophe it could play a certain part. On the whole it is much more of a morale building effort for the people involved.
Another side to this matter is the question of the possible use of these services in a civil rôle. This is the kind of thing which is suggested in the letters I receive, not from those who say that our whole defence system has been destroyed by this decision, but from those who believe that from time to time they are able to do something useful. We must not look at this matter from a rigidly statistical point of view. It is the same with first aid. Because there are not many accidents, first aid is not useless. It is useful to have people trained in such a way that they can at least approach a problem of this kind with the necessary knowledge and confidence if a disaster occurs. That does not mean that their training has been useless if the disaster does not occur. The greater the proportion of the population trained in first aid for dealing with crises of one kind or another and avoiding situations of panic, doing the kind of jobs done by members of the civil defence, the better it is for the community in a whole number of ways.
It will have become clear that my view of civil defence is rather different from the idea of establishing regional seats of government and having some kind of special defence to preserve some special element in the community in special circumstances. Those who write letters to us and worry about what is to happen to them, I think, feel very much the

same way. This applies particularly to the Auxiliary Fire Service. For these people clearly there is a civilian rôle which they can be fulfilling all the time. They wonder why this activity should suddenly be cut off.
The Government's reason is on grounds of cost. We have heard how much the cost is. Lord Stonham explained in detail something about the cost. The Under-Secretary has explained that a number of people had come forward with an offer to do away with the bounty and virtually to give their services for nothing. When one looks at the figures one sees that the cost is very marginal. In terms of money, we shall be saving very little, but we shall be sacrificing very much in terms of public spiritedness and a considerable degree of expertise.
The hon. Gentleman for Rugby referring to a book, of which he did not give us the exact source, cast a certain amount of ridicule on civil defence in general. I agree with him that many of the textbooks do read in that way. For 15 years I held a post as part-time medical officer and adviser to one of Her Majesty's Ordnance factories, a very large one, in which I was responsible for civil defence in the factory on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. I had to study all the manuals and documents as they came out. I entirely agree that some of them were utter nonsense. One dicovered this, and then they changed and became adapted one way or another. The fact remains that, as the years went on, the people who were trained, in particular the Ministry of Defence constabulary, ambulance drivers, and people of this kind, learnt new kinds of expertise which I do not regard as being wasted; things for which there is a possible civilian use in terms of various emergencies which we can all envisage occurring from time to time and which have been quoted in different parts of the House.
Although much of that kind of training I regarded as perhaps a little unreal, much of it also seemed to me to be highly relevant to new developments, and it seemed that much of it certainly had an influence upon their attitudes to new kinds of situations. This has assisted them and perhaps made them more highly-trained individuals, even in a society in which there are no attacks and


no need for civil defence in the ordinary sense.
My attitude to this is perhaps rather different from that of some of the hon. Members on this side of the House; it is also rather different from that of some of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I cannot see why the Government do not wish to make use of something which is clearly of value. I do not think we have considered this aspect in as much detail as we ought.
There is one point on which I hope perhaps we may have an answer. Civil defence personnel employed on the staff of local authorities, as I understand it, lead to the local authorities being in receipt of a grant, a direct repayment in terms of their remuneration or a percentage of it. I think that the figure is 70 per cent.
I am also given to understand—and certainly my own observations have confirmed this—that many of these people have spent part of their time doing civil defence work and part of their time doing other work. I am not suggesting this is improper in any way; I am not suggesting they were running around watering the town clerk's hollyhocks or anything of this kind. I am suggesting that a person who is in civil defence with a local authority may very well be doing certain routine jobs for that local authority which are associated in a way with civil defence, but I think there is a continuing need. They may have been put down as entirely civil defence and, because a grant was given to the local authority in respect of them, the local authority will be in some difficulties when it finds that it has to dispense with these people. It will have to take on new individuals to undertake certain of the functions which they are now fulfilling. This applies, too, in certain areas, with regard to the fire services.
We know about the deficiencies in the fire services; public services are below establishment almost all over the country. In some areas they have managed very well indeed because of the association with the Auxiliary Fire Service. If the Auxiliary Fire Service is to be disbanded, surely we are not helping but exaggerating and making worse a position which at the moment is difficult.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), who referred to the fact that fire damage at the moment is running at the rate of over £90 million a year, is not counting loss due to loss of production and so on. These are serious matters. We have people all over the country who are ready and willing to help. They agree that some of the old concepts and old ideas of civil defence are out of date; they are quite willing to make changes. They cannot make the changes on their own as individuals, but they look to the Government, to the Home Office and the local authorities and say, "Very well, if our rôle has gone, provide us with a new rôle. We are ready to do it, to learn and to work." It is a perfectly reasonable request. It is not war-mongering; it is not an attempt to make people feel that they are under a complete umbrella and that they have no need to worry about nuclear warfare. It is a matter of providing an outlet for public-spiritedness, providing a use for a considerable degree of expertise.
Finally, may I say that we, in my party, cannot in all conscience, vote for this Government Amendment. One reads this document expressing its appreciation of the services of the members of the civil defence forces and Auxiliary Fire Service, recognising the great value of their contribution and so on. In token of this appreciation, of this recognition, of this great value, the Government, for no real benefit I can see, says, "We will now dispense with these services and do away with them altogether". That seems to be an extraordinary attitude. I and my hon. Friends cannot support the Government in that line.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party. His was a very interesting argument which I very much appreciated, that we needed ambulances, fire services and people to organise themselves in moments of national emergency and that, generally, all this could be done by extending the normal health services of the local authority.
But this is really nothing to do with the concept of civil defence that we have


been trying to discuss in this House for many years. I say "trying" because, for many years, when I was in opposition, I used to ask the Leader of the House when the Conservative Party were in power, "When are we going to have a day for civil defence?". We never got it. Now, suddenly, the Opposition moves a Motion of censure. I have never seen a less convincing and less inspiring Motion of censure debate, and it almost makes me wonder whether I was right in asking for the debate at all, after all these years.
However, it will be a welcome change this week to go into the Lobby on the same side as the Government. I am sorry that I will not have the support of the Liberal Party; we have been working very well as a sort of united front during this week and I am afraid, on this, I must part company and put up a vigorous case in defence of Government policy. It is the first occasion for a very long time that I have tabled an Amendment congratulating the Government. If hon. Members knew the effort I had to summon up to do that, they would realise that I approach these debates with a certain amount of objectivity.
I have seen these various plans for civil defence evolve throughout the years. I have not had time to read the Defence White Paper this year, but civil defence was usually tacked on as a sort of postscript to the Defence White Paper. The Defence Estimates are usually, perhaps, £1,000 million or £2,000 million, and a sort of footnote, £20 million or so, is added on the end for civil defence.
Surely, if civil defence means anything, it is the defence of the civil population. We have seen all sorts of changes in what it was said the Government should do and how civil defence would work under successive Governments. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was not a bad Minister of Defence compared with some of them, because when he held that office there were drastic schemes for reductions in defence. He was not by any means the worst Minister of Defence we have had.
We asked, "What will you do in the event of atomic warfare?" The atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb changed civil defence outlook completely. Instead

of the old kind of air raid shelter and the warnings which were familiar in the 1939– 45 war, there was a completely new situation. The right hon. Member for Streatham had a wonderful plan for the evacuation of the civilian population. If atomic bombs were dropped, the civilian population was to be evacuated. That was the watchword of the Home Office at that time—evacuate the civil population.
To demolish that theory it was only necessary to ask "Where?" I remember asking that question, and one unfortunate hon. Gentleman said, "To the Highlands of Scotland". Four million people were to be evacuated to the Highlands. I pointed out that there were no houses in the Highlands to accommodate 4 million people. Year after year I asked, "How are the evacuation plans getting on?" The Home Office and the Scottish Office had some formula to the effect that they were being considered, or that consultations were being held and the evacuation scheme was going through a process of change. It is not only a process of change now. It is change and decay. We hear no more about the evacuation of the civilian population.
I want to ask a few questions about the position in Scotland. I hope that the Under-Secretary who is responsible for agriculture, prisons and civil defence in Scotland will try to give me a picture of what the Scottish Office thinks would happen in the event of an atomic war. As a result of recent developments in Scotland, the West of Scotland is one of the most dangerous places in the world. This is because of the Polaris submarine programme, for which the base has been developed at considerable expense.
One assumes that, if there are to be any strategic plans, the bases of the other country will be destroyed. In the last war we heard about submarine bases in Germany being bombed. They were not very safe places to live in. The bases were in danger and so was the population around them. When the first American Polaris ship came to the Holy Loch some of us, including members of the Labour Opposition Front Bench, were worried about it and asked whether this would not mean that the West of Scotland was in a dangerous situation because of the possibilities of a so-called enemy attack.
We managed to squeeze in a debate on a Friday afternoon. We were arguing about whether the West of Scotland was more dangerous as a result of the American ship coming there. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) said that it did not matter much whether the American ship was in the Holy Loch or in the Clyde or anywhere else in the West of Scotland because one megaton bomb dropped on Glasgow would wipe out everything within a radius of 100 miles. A radius of 100 miles from Glasgow covers the whole industrial belt and includes the constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and my own constituency. It goes right down to Carlisle. It includes Edinburgh. It goes as far north as Aberdeen. This was the estimate of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire, who has great experience of military affairs. If the whole of the West of Scotland is to be obliterated, where would the civil defence be? We have never been able to get an answer to that question.
That was seven years ago. The destructive power of the nuclear bomb has increased since then. We are told that it is 10 times more powerful. Such has been the development of the destructive power of the nuclear weapon that every Government in the world realise that, in the event of an atomic war, those who pressed the button would be committing suicide.
Given that situation, what about civil defence? The reasoning behind my Amendment is that the more provocative a country is in its foreign policy and the more weapons it has as so-called deterrents, the more dangerous that country makes itself. That is precisely what has happened in Scotland. I would like some credible authority to give me a picture of what would happen to the West of Scotland if a bomb dropped which was 20 times more powerful than the bomb we were talking about seven or eight years ago. The strategy of nuclear warfare has changed and is changing every month.
It has been said that Russia is the most advanced country for civil defence. I have moved about Russia a great deal and have talked with Russians. I have asked them, "Have you any civil

defence?" They have replied, "A few people go about giving lectures and handing out leaflets, but there is no real defence". The Russian way of trying to counter the strategy of the other man is to develop the rocket. We now know that on pressing a button rockets can go up over the world and one or two nuclear bombs could put this country out of action.
I do not know how many hon. Members have visited Japan. Last year I was fortunate enough to visit both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There I heard descriptions of what happened when the flash came and those two large industrial cities were almost wiped out in a few minutes. The suffering of the survivors was indescribable. Even today it is tragic to listen to the people who suffered as a result of the atomic bomb.
A country which is preparing to attack another country becomes subject to greater danger itself, because the other country may have the theory of retaliation, too, and the result is that the country making the preparation is subject to more danger than ever. As a result of pursuing the arms race, we are in a position of the maximum amount of danger with the minimum amount of protection.
The United States of America has a very expensive air raid shelter system in innumerable big cities. We are nearer to the Russian bomb than the Americans, but America has spent an enormous amount of money on civil defence. We are the sitting duck, and although we have spent this enormous amount of money during the last decade or so, our civil defence is much less effective than that of the United States of America. Every city in America has now got an anti-ballistic missile system. There is controversy in Detroit as to why it cannot be defended in the same way as Washington, and Washington is asking why some other American city is getting more money for civil defence. Although we are spending this enormous amount of money which puts us in so much danger, we are cutting down our civil defence.
The launching of our first atomic missile off the American coast took place the other day. We sent a piper of the Royal Scots Greys to celebrate the event by playing the lament, and, as the piper played the Polaris in, we are playing


civil defence out. The natural corollary is that the Government should not dismiss the civil defence people who I do not believe are doing a great deal of harm, though they have been spending a certain amount of money.
Civil defence is not like the Admiralty. The Admiralty is a powerful vested interest. When it decides to have money it puts on pressures and uses publicity, and we spend this enormous amount of money, £350 million, on the Polaris submarine programme. Why not take a bite out of that? On the West Coast of Scotland we are spending £45 million on the base, which results in increasing the danger. I suggest that the Government, instead of nibbling at this economy, should have gone for a reduction in the moneys that we are wasting on the Polaris programme.
I hope this will be backed up by a foreign policy. In the propaganda document of the Polaris I find the boast that one of these missiles can travel to Lake Baikal. That happens to be in Siberia. This adds to international tension, so the Russians waste their money on Polaris and killer submarines, and we do the same. I suggest that the Government should carry the argument to its logical conclusion--cut down nuclear weapons, cut down on arms, and endeavour to find a way of making people in other parts of the world realise that this country is not out to attack them. I do not believe the Russians want to attack us. I do not believe that we want to attack them, but we are following this vicious path and we are both spending enormous sums of money on the arms race at a time when the money and energy should be spent on raising the standard of life for the people.
This is a sort of curtain raiser to the Defence Estimates which are to be discussed next week. All I hope is that the Government will pursue this line of economy against the vested arms interests—against the Air Force, against the Admiralty, against the Army chiefs—and, although they have taken up this strong attitude against the little civil defence people, that they will take a strong line in that direction also.
There is the famous incident in the "Pickwick Papers" in which the Pickwickians were involved in a fight in one of the little villages near Dingley

Dell. We are told that Mr. Winkle took off his coat and went for the smallest boy he could see. This is what the Government are doing—taking off their coats and going for the small boy of civil defence. Let them have the courage to tackle the big ones.

8.17 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I will not follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) into the extremely interesting history of the Pickwick Club. The analogy he drew may or may not have been related to our present debate. Had I been a constituent of his, after listening to the speech he has made to the House, I should be filled with deep apprehension indeed and be wondering why the hon. Gentleman was, even at this late stage, supporting his hon. and right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench in the Lobby.
He has asked for the abolition of the Polaris missile. He has asked for a different foreign policy, and there is not a hope of getting either as he knows well.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have been advocating the withdrawal from east of Suez for many years, and I am glad to say I am now beginning to see the result.

Sir Frank Pearson: If it takes as long for the hon. Gentleman's points to be achieved as it has taken to withdraw from east of Suez I am sure the hon. Gentleman's constituents would prefer to have the cover of some civil defence organisation in the interim period and would think it valuable if the hon. Gentleman would come into the lobbies with us.
The speech to which I would wish to give my fullest support in this debate was that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) who, in superb language, said exactly what all of us on this side are thinking, and what many civil defence workers are thinking also. I found the speeches of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) of extreme interest. I could not for a moment accept the philosophy of fatalism on which they based many of their arguments, nor could I accept the philosophy that, because a nuclear explosion is going to be a most terrible catastrophe and this country may be more vulnerable than most to nuclear


attack, we should just sit down and do nothing about it at all. There is some logic in the argument that we should be purely pacifist, opt out of our world commitments, and have no nuclear bombs. Then there might be a case for saying, "We shall not attack anybody, and therefore nobody will attack us", though in the world as we know it that is a very doubtful proposition. But that is not the situation. Ministers have said time and time again that we are playing our part as a world Power, particularly a European Power, and we are playing our part in a nuclear age in which, however horrible or terrible the nuclear threat may be, it is something we must take into account.
The Home Secretary made what I thought was a peculiarly weak defence of his position. He admitted that the risk was still there, and no responsible Minister can say that there is no risk today. Of course, there is a risk. I should like briefly to deal with the theory of the insurance policy. When we take out insurance as individuals we pitch the size of our premium to what we consider to be the degree of risk, and as that degree is reduced so it is right and prudent to reduce the premium. As I understand it, that is what the Government did last year. In their Defence White Paper of 1967 they said on civil defence:
The future rôle of the Corps will be to help the local authorities to man the control system, which is the system of government in emergency, and to provide limited numbers of specialists to help to organise the first aid and welfare resources of the community. The new role of the Corps will be of great importance, and there will be a continuing need to attract people of high calibre, with qualities of leadership.
That was the position taken up by the Government about nine months ago. Then we heard that they had completely changed their policy and had determined totally to abolish the civil defence services. Do not let us play about with hypocritical words about reducing the level. There is no reduction in level; it is total abolition. The training centres are to be torn down, the people in uniform are to be sacked and there will be nothing left. The very name, civil defence services, will be banished from the Statute Book. It is nothing but gross hypocrisy for a Minister to say that the

Government are reducing the level of the services.
This vitally important policy decision has been made in the past nine months. What has happened in that time to justify such a change of view? Has there been a greatdémarchein world affairs? Is the U.S.S.R. less aggressive or expansionist than it was nine months ago? The U.S.S.R. is now entering the Mediterranean, where it was not present nine months ago. The world today is highly explosive. Whatever minimal protection our defence arrangements may give, it is totally irresponsible of a Government entirely to wipe them out, and to do it for a matter of £13 million or £14 million.
It is people's lives that the right hon. Gentleman is playing with. He is taking these measures for entirely the wrong reasons. I do not believe that he has for a moment weighed up the value of, or the need for, a civil defence service. He was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had to cut expenditure, so he sought to do it with the least damage to his Department. When he gave reasons for the measures this afternoon, there was not a single argument that carried weight. At one point he said that he was now of the opinion that we would have a much longer warning than in former times if a nuclear attack was likely to hit this country, but he never gave us any evidence for this new idea. He said it in a somewhat halfhearted manner, and I had the impression that he said it merely to get himself out of the difficulty of having to admit that he was scrapping civil defence and that no possible valid, reasonable arrangements could be made in less than six months.
The hon. Member for Rugby, in a speech full of interest, said that he would go into the Division Lobby with the Conservative Party tonight if he felt that his right hon. Friend was introducing the measures for the wrong reason. It sticks out a mile that the only reason they are being introduced is that the Treasury told the Home Department that so many millions of pounds had to be saved. That is a totally irresponsible and wrong reason for abolishing a service that has served this country well and could form the small nucleus of trained people that we shall require so badly if ever there is a national crisis.
Another aspect of the matter has been debated, and I believe that it is one of the greatest importance. In recent years, the civil defence services have almost begun to look on themselves as forming a civil defence service in the widest sense. The thought of nuclear attack has been in the background of the minds of even the most ardent volunteers. They felt that it might happen, and like all of us they hoped it would not, and believed that it would not. But as the thought of nuclear attack has possibly receded with the risk, so the conception of a body of volunteers in uniform, supported by the State, who will step in at times of local catastrophe and emergency has grown and played a valuable and important part in local life.
It is the passing of that side of civil defence that I regret so deeply, when these measures tear down the whole structure. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone said, in an urban and technical society such as we live in today when catastrophes occur they do so on a vast scale. Railway trains travelling at over 100 miles an hour and aeroplanes that will carry 500 people at great speeds can create catastrophes which need all the resources that we can bring to our aid. It is a tragedy that the civil defence services are being torn down when they could do such a magnificent job in that regard.
Do not let us forget that, more and more, we are developing nuclear fuel for power stations. Who is to say that some major leak might not occur, that we shall not have areas of the country affected by fall-out? It could well happen. If it did, we should be only too glad of the services of these voluntary bodies.
I do not believe that we have been given a single valid reason why these services should be abandoned. The Government Amendment contains words of praise for the volunteers who have served our defence services well. I do not think that they will appreciate those words very much. Yesterday, their services were said to be of the highest importance to the country; today they are told that they are not necessary. I do not think that they will lend any great weight or appreciation to the somewhat hypocritical thanks

which the Government have included in the Amendment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I hold in my hands the Statement on the Defence Estimates for 1968– 69. They tell me that we are budgeting for an estimate which has increased on last year's. Our total budget for defence and all that is associated with it runs to the sum of £2,271 million, an excess over our budget for last year. At the same time, I have the Order Paper which tells me that the Government propose to make a reduction in the level of civil defence. and to me that is rather a sad contradiction.
We are reducing the amount to be spent on the defence of the civilian community at the same time as we are increasing the sum to be spent on defence services which necessarily involve a vast amount of destruction. We are doing this at a time when the experts tell us that one nuclear bomb destroys everything completely within an area of 3,140 square miles, so that 28 nuclear bombs would destroy entirely everything within the 88,000 square miles comprising Great Britain.
These are the hard facts of the situation. They are difficult to mitigate and, in my view, our plight, however much we may deplore the expenditure on military means, will not be helped in any way by a reduction in what we are spending on the level of civil defence. But it is not so much the level of civil defence that I want to look at as its nature, because I served on the Estimates Committee for most of the Conservative Government's existence. I was on Sub-Committee C, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington).
During that period, we conducted a number of investigations. I hope they were useful. I am not sure that they produced many changes. One of those investigations was into civil defence and it is of that inquiry that I want to speak in particular. After many months of questioning and meeting all the authorities associated with civil defence, I suppose we met the fate that so many of our Committees meet in the House—a brief two hour debate.
I hope the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will reflect on the fact that his own Government, when they had the power to do so, could not provide us with more than two hours to investigate the subject which has agitated him and so many of us today. The most disappointing aspect was that after the very short debate of two hours dealing with months of work, the then Home Secretary, now in another place, had to be castigated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) who said that his speech:
… showed a good deal of contempt for the Committee's work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 1388.]
Our attempt to inquire fruitfully into this subject did not receive a great deal of attention from the then Government. One of the subjects at which we looked was the civil defence handbook, a guide for those in the service. We discovered that it was distributed free to the police, the fire services and members of the civil defence organisation, but not to the general public, who will be most severely and widely affected by the lack of civil defence. The public require to know what should be done in the event of a nuclear attack, but they had to pay 9d. if they wanted to discover what they must do to secure their own future in such an event.
We recommended to the Government that if they were interested in the survival of the people, the handbook should be distributed freely to all who wanted it. That was rejected. There could be no free distribution of the knowledge which might help the population to survive. We were assured that the handbook would be revised from time to time in the light of changing circumstances. Has it been so revised? It was issued in 1963. Is there any mention of the fire power now being used in Vietnam, showing that circumstances of war have changed profoundly?
We are told that as much fire power has been showered so far on Vietnam as was used in the whole of the last war—a fundamental change; and yet on inquiry today I found that the Home Office still distributes the booklet which shows how the population could help to preserve its existence—a booklet issued at a cost of

9d. in 1963. Today the same handbook is still being given out—I hope now free, though I could not find that out—in the face of circumstances which have vastly changed.
The booklet tell us that water is more essential to life than food. I think that we shall all agree on that. But air is more essential than either food or water, because we can live for three weeks without food and for three days without water, but for only three minutes without air.
We are told what to do to prevent a shortage of water, a substance which can be seen. Yet we are not told what to do in the event of air contamination by radiation, which can be neither seen nor felt nor heard, and possibly not even smelt. People are advised to fill their baths with fresh water. What about the thousands of homes in Britain which are still without baths? In Scotland the position is very bad in this respect, yet the householder is instructed to fill his bath with water.
Sanitation is another thing which must be carefully preserved. We could not rely, we are told, on being able to use the W.C.; there might not be enough water to flush it, and the sewerage system might be damaged. In Scotland today, which is being given this advice now on how to preserve its population in the event of nuclear attack, of the households of one and two rooms, 80 per cent. lack or share a fixed bath and 74 per cent. lack or share a W.C. A Scottish housing survey issued last year under the chairmanship of Mr. J. B. Cullingworth shows that at the moment 273,000 houses need to be demolished quickly and 193,000 have only a short life of from 15 to 29 years. So that nearly half a million houses in Scotland need to be replaced in the near future, because they have neither a W.C. nor the room for it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman relates his remarks to the Motion and the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: This is the position which can arise and which is inherent and factual in this debate today. We are dealing with civil defence, and this must include all the means and all the instructions which are necessary to ensure the survival of our people.
I am quoting from a House of Commons handbook on civil defence which tells people what they must do in the event of a nuclear attack if they want to survive. People are advised to
Keep the things listed below "—
and I shall be reading them out—
in the fall-out room.
Where is the fall-out room when one lives in a single room or a room and kitchen, as thousands of people are living at the moment?
People are advised to keep the things in the fall-out room, as I said,
or within easy reach outside the door.
Then we find the list:
Large receptacles with covers and with improvised seats to use as urinals "—
outside one's door!

Mr. Eric Ogden: I would remind my hon. Friend that these things were managed by a great many people just prior to 1939 for their defence against aerial bombardment. I agree that that is not comparable with this eventuality. However, it was possible for things to be done.

Mr. Rankin: I am sure that no one in this House will try to compare what happened in the last war with what conceivably could happen in the event of nuclear war. There is no comparison, for the simple reason that social circumstances have changed, I believe in a downward direction, and the difficulty of doing these things is greater than it used to be. We are asked to do them in times of peace, and not in wartime.
This is what people have to keep outside their doors, in a flat of four houses together, and to have them within easy reach:
Large receptacles with covers and with improvised seats to use as urinals, and for excreta. Ashes, dry earth or disinfectant, toilet paper, clean newspapers, brown paper or strong paper bags (to wrap up food remains and empty tins) dustbin with well fitting lid for pets. Keep a box of earth or ashes.
Imagine what a play paradise that would be for children living in those tenements. How are people to do this preparatory work in the conditions in which they now live?
Another example of what to do during this protective period is that a husband

wearing long boots must take them off before coming into the house, and his wife should present him with a pair of shoes. I hope that the shoes would always be intended by the good wife to go on his feet. Not that they would land where humourists tell us they occasionally do.
I want now to give the House the final recommendation made by the Committee appointed under its authority to inquire into our preparations for Civil Defence, the expenditure on which is now being reduced.
The Committee recommended:
Your Committee are anxious that the public should be aware of the steps that are being taken to protect them, and they feel that this pamphlet creates entirely the wrong impression.
That pamphlet is still in circulation. It is still the official pamphlet for civil defence. The Committee therefore recommended that Civil Defence Handbook No. 10 should now be withdrawn. Yet it is still our guide and philosopher—but not our friend. I hope that that will be duly noted when my hon. Friend comes to reply.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will forgive me if I do not refer to his remarks too closely. I want to refer especially to the remarks made by three of his hon. Friends who are not here at the moment, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It seemed that they all had one thing in common: to do away with all form of civil defence in this country leading on to greater things—presumably complete and unilateral disarmament.
I know better than to try to persuade the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to change their minds, but the hon. Member for Rugby is a different kettle of fish. First, he is a neighbour of mine suffering similar constituency problems. Secondly, he said that whilst he would support the Government tonight, he would stay to listen to the arguments deployed on this side to see if there were any sound reasons why we should retain a fabric of civil defence.
I am sorry that he has gone, because the first reason which would probably have the most effect on him is the comfort that the national fabric of civil defence now operating, however flimsy and thin it may be, gives to elderly people who do not understand international problems. Secondly, if we have a nuclear exchange millions will be killed, but millions more will be injured to one degree or another. To dismantle the whole fabric of civil defence, leaving those people with the certain knowledge that they are not likely to expect succour in any way, because there is no civil defence authority to supply it, must be an overriding consideration in supporting the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).
I know that the Home Secretary has been up all night. For that reason, the House, whilst admiring his fortitude, will perhaps excuse the lack of vigour with which he defended his case against the civil defence service. He did not seem to possess his usual tenacity and, even to us on this side, the usual strain of conviction which he deploys in many arguments. I thought the worst example and the weakest argument that the right hon. Gentleman deployed this afternoon was when he praised the volunteer spirit of those who man the A.F.S. and civil defence services. He went on to say that there is always an avenue for them to put their spirit to good use in the Red Cross, the W.R.V.S. and the St. John Ambulance Brigade. What good is the Red Cross or the W.R.V.S. to 99 per cent. of civil defence and A.F.S. workers? Certainly there are quite a lot of men employed in the Red Cross, but the majority of workers in that organisation are women—women doing a wonderful job of work. The W.R.V.S. is entirely staffed by women, and the St. John Ambulance Brigade is fully manned at the moment.
I had the feeling that it was rather shameful of the right hon. Gentleman to expect the House to accept the weak way in which he put these three alternative avenues of employment for public spirited people who are prepared to give a bit of their own time for their country.
I deplored the Government's announcement on 18th January. It is regrettable that we never learn the old lessons of

unpreparedness. In 1966 the Government slashed manpower in the Civil Defence Corps from 122,000 to 75,000, and cut the cost of running it from £24 million to £20 million per annum. As has been made clear by my hon. Friends, and by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Government now propose virtually to abolish the civil defence service by cutting the cost by another £14 million, and putting it on a care-and-maintenance basis only.
The Government's record is nothing if not consistent in the trail of broken promises and broken pledges of one kind and another which every Minister in almost every Department has left behind him recently. The House is familiar with the solemn pledges which have been given by the Government, especially on defence. There was none more shameful than the pledge given less than a year ago by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in another place when he said that no one could say that all danger of nuclear attack was passed, and went on to indicate that until we could say with certainty that the danger had passed, no Government worthy of their name could leave people helpless in the aftermath of such a disaster. That was said, not some years ago, but only a few months ago, and yet here we have the Government proposing to abolish the civil defence service.
As my hon. Friends have said, circumstances have not changed. They have not changed in years, never mind in the last few months. The Government break pledges on almost everything to which they turn their hands. When they took office in 1964, they inherited a viable military aircraft industry, an effective, efficient and well-manned Civil Defence Corps, an effective Navy, with another carrier on the stocks, or planned anyway, and a series of defence bases which helped to ensure that we were unlikely ever to need a Civil Defence Corps because our forces helped to maintain a stability in areas which have grown no more stable in recent months. In fact, rather the contrary.
In the few years that the Socialist Government have been in office, all those cards in the hand have been thrown away and we are left with an empty Exchequer. It seems extraordinary that after the recent bout of defence cuts which envisages, within a short time, the


ending of any pretence of this country's role in the Far East, or the Middle East, at a time when the Government are prepared to rat on our responsibilities abroad and leave a vacuum in dangerous and difficult corners of Asia, at a time when the country has never been weaker, it has been decided, to dismantle, at one blow, to save a few million £s, the whole fabric of our civil defence service and auxiliary fire service.
I have received constituency objections which I want to canvass, which is why I have had the patience to sit here all day after sitting here all night. A number of people in Leicestershire are deeply distressed about these cuts. A letter with a national angle is from the General Secretary of the British Fire Services Association, from his London Road office, pointing out that the Association is entirely non-political and nondenominational and exists for the well being of the members of the A.F.S. and the regular fire services.
He says that all members of the A.F.S. have stressed their willingness to go on working voluntarily by surrendering any payment, bounties or subsistence and are even prepared to pay their own travelling expenses. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind this noble gesture and treat it a little more kindly and a little less disdainfully. It has been said that we lose £80 million a year in large fires, at many of which the A.F.S. assists. Cannot the A.F.S. be kept on on a voluntary basis?
I also have a letter from the secretary of the Leicester and Leicestershire Civil Defence Association who lives in my constituency. The Civil Defence Corps is essential to the future safeguarding of our well being and this gentleman calls my attention to a pledge by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer replying to a former Minister of Housing in February, 1966. Asked where the fire fighting personnel would be drawn from in the event of an attack over and above the peacetime fire service he said:
We have the National Fire Service and the Auxiliary Fire Service, and I do not think that independently of what might be done by the Home Defence Force we shall have any significant reduction in the number of men available for fire fighting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1092.]
The right hon. Gentleman forwarded that letter to the Secretary of the British Fire

Services Association. It was a pledge and it is deplorable that so soon after this pledge by different Ministers a complete change of attitude should take place.
I conclude by making a special plea in relation to the Civil Defence Corps. I have been asked to ask the Home Secretary whether it is absolutely necessary to dismantle the Civil Defence Corps to the extent which is threatened by the Government. It has been suggested to me by the Leicestershire Civil Defence Service that a workable nucleus can be kept by discontinuing the full-time regional officers and leaving the continuance of the Corps to the care of the local authority, county boroughs, county councils, or whatever they may be, with the possibility of mergers to suit geographical locations, the membership retained to be only those trained to instructor at advanced levels and those personnel to be kept up to date with information, with no bounty paid.
I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all he has been through in the last day of two, to remember every word that I have said, but I hope that he and his hon. Friend will look atHansardtomorrow, for I believe this is a worthwhile suggestion. I am sure that he will be good enough to do so.
Why is he keeping on the Royal Observer Corps when there is going to be nobody for that Corps to report to? Surely, that is an extraordinary decision to take. It has been put to me that probably the Government have once again got the answer the wrong way round. Members of the Civil Defence Corps and Auxiliary Fire Service are genuinely decent men who want to do a bit extra for the country and I can only say that I regard the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and that of some of his hon. Friends behind him as a churlish one to have adopted to these patriotic citizens.

9.7 p.m.

Sir David Renton: We are all glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) displayed his great staying power and caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has made practical and constructive suggestions about the Auxiliary Fire Service and the Civil Defence Corps, and


his suggestions deserve an answer, which I am sure the Under-Secretary of State will wish to give.
My hon. Friend has said that the present Government break faith, and today we have had another display of government by contradiction, as I shall show. As to the Opposition Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary complained of the reference to the abolition of the responsibilities of local authorities. He claims, quite unjustifiably in my opinion, that the local authorities will be left with their responsibilities; but he is going to deprive them of the money, the staff and the volunteers to enable them to carry out those responsibilities.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the £8 million to £10 million, broadly speaking, which will be the actual cost of local authority civil defence services, if we cut out the other items which are usually lumped together with civil defence, is something the Government cannot afford; but he says the Government are going to leave local authorities with their responsibilities to the extent of £1 million. That is not sincere. It is not genuine. That is not leaving the local authorities with their responsibilities. It is, no doubt, for that reason that local authorities asked to see him; and I am wondering whether the time has come for us to be told what transpired and what the Government have decided as a result of that visit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) got to the core of the matter in saying that local authorities provide the professional organisation which enables the volunteers to do the good job that they do. That is the position of local authorities and that is why we complain that the Government intend to abolish their responsibilities.
As for the Government Amendment—well, that really is something. The Government express their appreciation on paper to the volunteers for what they have done, but they express it in practice by disbanding the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service and by declining their offer to continue their training and service on the cheapest possible basis. [An HON. MEMBER: "Humbug."] It is nothing but humbug. The Government's refusal to consider further the offer of the volunteers must

be described—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my using strong words; he is accustomed to them and, in this case, they are appropriate—as churlish, unimaginative and mean. They are not even to have the benefit of suspended animation, which might have meant something for them.
Although this has been an exhausting time for the right hon. Gentleman, we are grateful that he is in his place to listen to the wind-up speech, I found his speech not only disappointing but, from the national point of view, dangerous, and I will explain why. He pointed out that when he got to the Home Office he was asked to make some economies, that he had a look at the Home Office account—which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, tends to be based on the shoestring principle—and decided that he had to do something about the police. We regretted that on an earlier occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "Scratching my head hard, I came to the conclusion that the only other thing I could find was civil defence." So he said to himself—he told us how he asked himself this question—"Can we afford civil defence?" which was the wrong question. He should have asked himself. "Can we afford to do without civil defence?"
When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about that, a comparison immediately sprung to my mind because he is not the first Chancellor of the Exchequer in recent years to move to the Home Office. When Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was, moved to that Department, having been Chancellor for five years and having got the economy going well again after six years of Socialism, he was asked by the Treasury—I remember this well in 1961—if there were any economies that could be made on the Home Office account. Apart from a few very minor items, he replied, "No", and that is what the right hon. Gentleman should have said.
Moreover, in the financial year 1961–62 Mr. Butler, in spite of a desire for Government economy, managed to persuade his Cabinet colleagues that they should be spending more on civil defence. Now we find the right hon. Gentleman, having failed to prevent devaluation as Chancellor, mutilating civil defence as Home Secretary because he has to find


an economy item. It is not only a very poor case on the ground of economy that he puts forward—and if there is time I will examine it in greater detail later—but he expresses, in the most extraordinary terms, a case to the effect that the risk which civil defence is intended to cover has been diminished. He said that the risk of nuclear attack now is less than a year ago.
He pointed to hopes for a non-proliferation treaty as a basis for that belief. It is right to point out that two very important countries which are going nuclear, France and China, have decided not to support a non-proliferation treaty. There is a further dangerous new factor about which we do not know much yet but which ought to put the Government on their guard. Some Dutch scientists have found a cheap way of providing enriched uranium.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is a danger of nuclear attack from either France or China?

Sir D. Renton: I do not think that is the crucial question to consider. The crucial question to consider is: do we live in a safe world or a dangerous world? Bearing in mind the unusual and unexpected ways in which all kinds of conflicts start, can we regard the world today as so very much a safer place that we can dispense with what previous Government spokesmen have called the modest insurance premium involved in having a civil defence system? That is the crux of the matter and my answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
The hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) entirely overlooked the vital factor which was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone, who pointed out, with his usual clarity and force, that it is not merely a nuclear holocaust against which we should provide; we should provide against the possibility of even a conventional war starting somewhere, in Europe perhaps and escalating. We might or might not be involved, but we are near enough to the fringe to make it highly desirable—I speak as a native of South-East England—that we should have at least some means of protecting

the civilian population, some kind of preparedness. I go so far as to say that it is lacking in humanity not to do so.
I continue with the reasons put forward by the Home Secretary for saying that the risk has diminished. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) interrupted him to ask how long it would take to reactivate civil defence in an emergency. The words of the Home Secretary replying should be noted. No doubt they will be recorded more carefully in HANSARD, but I recorded them as follows: "Future crises will take longer to come to a head." If it is now a widely accepted assumption of Government defence policy that crises in future are to take longer to come to a head than they have in the past, the House of Commons should have been told in the statement on Defence Estimates, but of course there was not a single word of that there. It is a fantastic assumption as a basis for defence planning.
I ask the Under-Secretary to tell us definitely when winding up the debate whether this is an assumption which the Minister of Defence makes or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I leave the right hon. Gentleman with this final comment, although it is tempting to take up the time of the House with many more, but my hon. Friends have made such interesting and forceful speeches that it is unnecessary to do so.
I should like just to refer to a sentence in his speech which, whether he knew it or not, was taken straight out of paragraph 19 of the Defence White Paper, the only paragraph which is headed "Home Defence". He said, and it says:
Civil defence training and planning will continue at the minimum level necessary to preserve knowledge and techniques and to enable more active preparations to be resumed, if necessary, without too much loss of ground.
The man who wrote that must have written it either with a very heavy heart or with his tongue in his cheek. I prefer to think that it was written with a heavy heart. I certainly think it is a counsel of despair.
I wonder whether it might be of some help to the House if one were to attempt to do what so far the Government have not done, which is to mention in some detail the steps that would have to be taken in order to reactivate civil defence. In doing this one should bear in mind


that from the time that the Civil Defence Act, 1948, was first introduced, until quite recently, it was an assumption that there would not be more than 3 weeks' tension before there was a major conflict. It was assumed that civil defence should be kept at a state of 48 to 72 hours' readiness and that was on the basis of part-time volunteers. It was also assumed that we should get four minutes' warning from Fylingdales of the arrival of the first missile.
With that in mind, I ask the House to consider in detail what steps would have to be taken to reactivate the civil defence organisation including the Corps and the regional and sub-regional offices which are to be unmanned and put into the hands of "Mrs. Mopps", and consider whether it is prudent to leave a state of affairs in which all these things will have to be done.
These are what they are: first—because we know the Government are going to lay an Order to annul numerous Orders that have gone before, imposing responsibilities on local authorities—an Order would have to be laid before Parliament reactivating the Civil Defence Corps and it would require an affirmative Resolution. We all know that Parliament can act very quickly in certain circumstances if required, of course.
The next thing is that administrative circulars would have to be sent, not only by the Home Office but by other Departments, to local authorities. Local authorities, having considered those circulars, would then have to advertise, to choose and to appoint their civil defence officers and staffs. The Home Office would also have to appoint the regional and sub-regional staffs all over again for they, meanwhile, would have been disbanded. Next, we should have to call again for civil defence volunteers and both the volunteers and the permanent staffs taken on would have either to be trained or re-trained. We must remember that only one training establishment would have been left at Easingwold, which has only 30 places. Then, the volunteers and staffs having been trained or re-trained would have to be formed into effective operational units for passive defence in order to help the civilian population. Premises would have to be found if

meanwhile—and this applies especially to local authority premises—they had been put to other uses, as many of them will have been.
Then it would be necessary to get vehicles out of the Home Office depots and acquire many other vehicles. Finally, the technical instruments, which at the moment are held by local authorities ready for immediate distribution in case of emergency, would have to be got out of Home Office stores, in many cases a long distance away. I heard that, for example, from one Midland town the radiac instrument and survey meters were to go to a Home Office store in the Eastern counties. I obviously do not wish to disclose where. So that would have to be done in an emergency. They would have to be taken out of moth balls, checked, tested and redistributed to corps authorities.
I do not know how long all that would take. I can only remind the House that when it became necessary to reactivate the Civil Defence Corps after the Labour Government passed the 1948 Act it took about three years to establish it, even though A.R.P. had been disbanded only three years previously and even though in that case they were allowed to remain in suspended animation and local authorities were encouraged to allow them to use the buildings which were available.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: If it is proposed to do this by road, will they not have to wait for 21 days for British Railways to object under the new Transport Bill?

Sir D. Renton: I am very thankful that I gave way to my hon. Friend. Even if this reactivation had to take place within, say, a year from now, the whole process would take many weeks. After two or three years of disbandment, it would obviously take many months, and it might even take several years. Obviously the longer the time after disbandment that it had to be done, the longer the process would take. It is, therefore, misleading and hypocritical for the Government to say that this could be done "without too much loss of ground".
The two major factors in the debate have been the discussion of the risk and the discussion of the cost. In the two or three minutes remaining to me I will summarise the position with regard to


both factors. Our case is that, if the civil defence organisation is being abolished in the way in which it is being effectively abolished, the credibility of the deterrent is reduced. I hope that hon. Members opposite do not mind my saying "credibility". I know that they are a little touchy about it at present. Perhaps "effectiveness" is a word which will hurt less. There could be no attempted survival of our race or of our multi-racial society if the worst should happen at less than a year's notice once this has been done. The Prime Minister, having once said
Britain will cease this pretence of being a nuclear power",
is retaining the nuclear deterrent, others will take note that we have reduced its effectiveness by abolishing civil defence. Nor will there be any attempt at saving life in a major but less serious emergency once the civil defence organisation has gone. An ever-ready service for saving life and giving help to our people in war and peace will have disappeared.
In this context I quote the very moving words used by the late Aneurin Bevan when he replied to the debate on Second Reading of the Civil Defence Bill, 1948. Referring to the voluntary services which are now to be terminated, he said this:
I believe that the war showed that these services developed a great sense of comradeship amongst those taking part. Without consideration of party, of class, or of differential income, the whole population of this country is prepared to co-operate in defending itself against the rigours of another war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1200.]
That was his ideal as he spoke, but it is to be the ideal no longer. This mutilation of civil defence must be added to the long list of this Government's failures. The decision displays a lack of judgment in defence matters, a lack of consideration to volunteers and, although I do not like saying it I say it again, a lack of humanity.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): The Home Office team and their shadows have been constantly facing each other during the last three days. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have accompanied me and my right hon. Friend into the Division Lobbies during the last few days, and,

while we may have appreciated his support on some of the difficult issues that we faced, in view of some of the company he brought with him tonight it will be a relief to have a little party segregation. I say that with no disrespect to hon. Members for the help they gave.
Some serious and sincere speeches have been made in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) spoke with great sincerity from his experience in the Armed Forces, in the territorials, and civil defence. Other hon. Gentlemen spoke of their impressions from close association with civil defence gained either over many years or during the last few weeks.
Apart from the sincere things which have been said, there has been a lot of rot spoken tonight. Time and time again we have heard it said that by our decision to reduce the level of civil defence we are leaving the country defenceless. This absurd claim has been made time and time again by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is arrant nonsense to suggest that we are destroying our country's ability to defend itself.
All we are talking about is a matter of scale, a matter of risk, and it is a matter of insurance. My right hon. Friend was talking about the risk. It is absolutely clear to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that there has, over a period of years, been a relaxation in international tension. There is no question but that the relationship between the two main power blocks has been less and less monolithic, and that there are more and more issues on which they have sought to come together. For hon. Gentlemen to suggest otherwise would indicate that they are out of touch.
When deciding on the level of civil defence, as my right hon. Friend has said, we must not only assess the risk in the field of international relations but we must also assess our economic circumstances.

Mr. Blaker: Mr. Blaker rose—

Mr. Ennals: I will not give way now. This is what the Government have done—

Mr. Grieve: Mr. Grieve rose—

Mr. Ennals: I will give way later, but I have some statements to make.
The Government have a responsibility to maintain a nucleus of civil defence, and in this I am disagreeing with some of my hon. Friends. Unless, and until we live in a disarmed world, a responsibility will fall upon the Government, and we are talking about the question of scale. The Government have made it quite clear that they are maintaining the structure of the control and communications systems, the equipment that will be required, and the Royal Observer Corps, which has an important relationship with the Royal Air Force. It has responsibilities extending beyond the bounds of our country and mans the Warning and Monitoring Organisations. All that is in accordance with our N.A.T.O. responsibilities.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the arguments he has deployed on international strategy demonstrate that it is really not adequate for them to be put by a Home Office Minister? Why is not a single one of his colleagues from the Defence Department present, and why has there not been one present throughout the debate?

Mr. Grieve: Mr. Grieve rose—

Mr. Ennals: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been a placid debate so far.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) largely gave a foreign affairs speech, and no doubt he will be able to repeat it during the defence debates in the next few weeks.

Mr. Grieve: Mr. Grieve rose—

Mr. Ennals: Many questions have been put, and I shall try to deal with them.
My first point concerns some of the responsibilities that fall on local government, because clearly there has been—[Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Members opposite want to listen to answers to questions. I ask them to show a little courtesy.
I want to refer to questions of responsibilities falling on local government. It has been suggested that by disbanding the volunteer service which it has been the duty of local authorities to maintain under the Civil Defence Act, 1948, we are

leaving local authorities with no residual civil defence responsibilities. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) suggested that we were giving them responsibilities with no money. Different points of view have been put forward. Although the disbandment of the volunteer services will substantially reduce the civil defence responsibilities of local authorities, important responsibilities will still remain.
There is some danger of assuming that the activities and operations of the volunteer services formed the sum total of local authorities' efforts in civil defence matters. Those who suggested that the abandonment of the volunteer part of the civil defence preparations therefore meant the end of civil defence preparations show that they do not know much about the subject.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) talked about other countries and the way in which they carried out their civil defence responsibilities. The point was also made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). We have been unusual among our N.A.T.O. allies and most other countries in having a volunteer civil defence force. Only in Belgium, Portugal, and Luxembourg do the civil defence authorities have any volunteers, and those are only in very small numbers. To support their regular peace-time services, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway rely on conscription. Italy—[Interruption]. From the sound of that intervention, right hon. Gentlemen opposite think that civil defence should be carried out here by conscription. We certainly do not.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Do we gather then that those countries regard civil defence as so essential that they are prepared to impose compulsion to ensure that the service is performed?

Mr. Ennals: I made it clear that other members of N.A.T.O. and neutral countries have different methods of meeting their civil defence responsibilities. For example, Italy bases its civil defence service on the national fire brigade. The United States and Canada regard civil defence as an extension of normal government, placing reliance on the staff of the


Federal, State, provincial and municipal governments. Therefore, the suggestion that by disbanding a voluntary corps one abdicates one's responsibilities is quite absurd.
By disbanding our own special corps of volunteers, we shall be changing the balance of local authority activities. For this purpose, we shall be providing grant-aided expenditure of about£1 million a year, which, of course, is much less than before, to be devoted largely to planning. In addition, we shall be authorising grant-aided expenditure for maintaining existing operational control buildings and their communications in order to maintain the regional communications network through which the local authorities could communicate in an emergency with sub-regional controls and with each other.
I have given these facts because I want to make it clear that the network of control and communication will exist. As my right hon. Friend said, we shall continue to maintain some central training facilities at Easingwold. It shows the extent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge, or his willingness, not intentionally to mislead the House, I am sure, but to exaggerate his case, that he said there were only 30 places. In fact, there are 60. [Laughter.] That is twice as many as the figure he gave.

Sir D. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to accept his Amendment?

Mr. Ennals: With pleasure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was only 100 per cent. wrong. At Easingwold, senior staff of local authorities will be able to discuss civil defence planning with officers of central Departments and essential services and industries. The burden of local authority responsibility in the unlikely event of war would be considerable, but it is important not to underestimate the resources of local authorities. The Civil Defence Corps formed but a small part of the resources of skilled technicians, professional men and women and administrators to be found among local authority staffs, and a great fund of expertise remains to discharge civil defence responsibilities. It will be for local authorities to make plans in peacetime to see that their resources can

be fully used to the best advantage if war should come.
A number of hon. Members have put forward, in the debate and in correspondence, various suggestions as to how the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S. could in one way or other, be kept going. I want to look at some of these proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth proposed that somehow we should find a way to continue the volunteer forces without official support or financial help.
My right hon. Friend and I have been very much impressed, as he said, by the spirit of service which has been shown in the representations we have received. [Laughter.] It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Members to laugh, but I speak myself as one who has been a volunteer civil defence worker. I know what it means and I know the sense of commitment of the men and women both in the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S. They have given a great deal of service to the community and it is not just a pretence to say that there is genuine appreciation by the Government of that service. It is because of their generosity of spirit and mind that they suggested going without bounty or other direct payment. But this, as I have explained previously, accounts for little more than 8 per cent. of total expenditure.
Others, while accepting that the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S. as at present organised must cease, have suggested that their members might continue to meet socially and perhaps do a little amount of training. Naturally, we would not wish to oppose any proposals for volunteers to establish or maintain voluntary associations for this purpose. It is for the members themselves to decide. But I must say that there are serious practical difficulties in their organising any training. It is clear that the Government will not go back on their financial decision, and since they will withdraw from the local authorities the responsibilities now upon them to provide the Civil Defence Corps, it would be quite wrong now for the Government, at the same time as, in another connection, they are telling local authorities that they must economise on their staff, to urge them to take a responsibility which may involve them in expenditure.
Without effective training, and this applies especially in the A.F.S., but also


to the Civil Defence Corps, the thought that they will, in first-aid or fire-fighting be able to make a direct contribution, not only in war-time situations, but in peacetime situations, is one that we should watch very carefully.

Dr. Winstanley: Surely the 8 per cent. to which the hon. Gentleman referred relates to the Civil Defence Corps not the A.F.S.? If the figure for the A.F.S. is different why has he found it necessary to refuse offers of voluntary help, without bounty or other fees from members of 35 out of 132 fire brigades?

Mr. Ennals: The figure of 8 per cent.—it is nearer 8½ per cent.—covers the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S.
The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked me about meeting in local authority premises. He asked if these people could not meet in headquarters and control rooms in order to maintain their activities. This is a matter for the local authorities. Certainly the Home Office would not stand in the way of this kind of activity. It has been suggested that the active rôle of the Corps should be suspended rather than disbanded on the precedent, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South pointed out of 1945, when the Civil Defence was stood down after the passage of the Civil Defence (Suspension of Powers) Act, 1945.
The statutory position is different, because although we have to revoke the Civil Defence Corps Regulations, which require local authorities to organise divisions of the Corps, the Civil Defence Act, 1948, under which these Regulations were made, is not to be repealed. Consequently it remains open to the Home Secretary to reconstitute the Corps at any time subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Regulations. I am not suggesting that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to do so. [Interruption.] He made it perfectly clear that it was not. He said that it was unlikely that the Corps would be reconstituted at any time in exactly the same form. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he opened the debate, in the enthusiasm of the moment, or the tiredness of the afternoon, seemed to address a great plea to all Civil Defence and A.F.S. workers, saying that if somehow or other, by some mis-

fortune, his party was returned to power, these people would be reorganised back into their services. This was a very unwise thing for him to have said.
There cannot be any question of changing from disbandment to suspension. If local groups wish to organise themselves and meet together, they may feel that they are in a state of suspension, because if there was ever a crisis then no doubt those men who have been members of the Corps—and this is a perfectly serious answer—who have been involved in training operations would receive the call, whether by means of public appeal or otherwise, to help in the sort of catastrophe that other hon. Gentlemen have put forward.

Mr. Crawshaw: I appreciate the fact that merely to give the service would make only a marginal difference in the cost, but it is the establishment that matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that most of the auxiliary services give one night a week or more to the regular services'? Is it not possible, without having establishments of their own, for them to be able to continue doing this?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot see any possibility of going back on the decision taken by the Government to disband the A.F.S. If my hon. Friend or any hon. Gentleman wishes to put forward such a suggestion, or any suggestion that may be helpful, I can assure them that in the course of time it will be examined by my right hon. Friend and myself. It would honestly be absurd to give a snap answer to a proposal made on the floor of the House of Commons.
There was some criticism of a point made by my right hon. Friend when expressing appreciation of the number and service of the volunteers. He said that there were many other opportunities for voluntary service. He mentioned the British Red Cross and the Order of St. John, and he might have mentioned the Special Constabulary or the Women's Royal Voluntary Service. These are voluntary services of tremendous national importance. Their members are trained and ready for peace-time services and are available in time of crisis.
I want to pay tribute also—and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, had he taken part in the


Debate, would have joined with me in paying tribute—to the work done by the A.F.S. and the Civil Defence Corps in the Glasgow storm crisis and at Aberfan, and Hither Green.
The two voluntary corps which were talked about were established and financed for one thing; and, while we must give credit to the service which they do in particular emergencies, this would not warrant the Governmental expenditure involved in maintaining them in the form of emergency corps. One of my hon. Friends made the suggestion that there should be some form of special peace emergency corps, and it is worth while looking to see whether there is, at national or regional level, some opportunity of canalising more effectively the willingness and enthusiasm of volunteers, not just for a war-time situation but for the crises which occur in our national life, and to which volunteers give a great deal of time.
I have attempted to deal with a number of the questions raised, but I must say that I believe that in the course of this debate there has been not just concern for the Civil Defence Corps and for the volunteers but a good deal of political talk as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in one of his recent week-end speeches, spoke of "phantom cuts". He referred to an uncontrollable urge on the part of the Government to spend. In this case the boot is on the other foot. My right hon. Friends and I on this side of the House are fed up with the hypocrisy of right hon. Gentlemen who have constantly demanded cuts in Government expenditure, yet every time that my right hon. Friends come forward with measures which imply reductions in expenditure they put forward motions of criticism. For the party opposite, that is sheer hypocrisy.
The cuts in civil defence about which we are talking are real ones. Admittedly, they are modest, with a saving of£13 million this year and£20 million in subsequent years. But it is an immediate saving, and it is one which not only affects the Exchequer but the local authorities and the rate burden; there will be many ratepayers who will appreciate the decision.
In the speech to which I referred, the Leader of the Opposition was talking about what he called all this "public

breast beating", and all this talk of "sacrifices and sacred cows". That may impress the Mitcham Conservative Association, but it cuts no ice in the House of Commons.
I am not certain that the right hon. Gentleman's sacred cow is not the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and I gave him warning that I wanted to quote from a speech which he made on 2nd February, in the course of which he said:
I am strongly inclined to accept that war is, if not in the absolute 100 per cent. sense essential to the life of human society, at any rate so deeply interwoven with it that policies and behaviour based on the assumption that it is practicable or possible, even desirable, to aim at permanent universal peace are self-condemning
I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that as an accurate transcript of what he said. He was commenting favourably on the report of a committee which decided that peace is not a good thing.
I do not know if that is the Opposition's view in a situation of peace and war. If it were to be so, it is surprising that the Motion that they have put on the Order Paper was not one calling for a dramatic increase in civil defence expenditure rather than the situation as we have it.
I have a question to ask of the Opposition. Does the statement made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West represent the views of Her Majesty's Opposition? If it does not, it is about time that the Leader of the Opposition repudiated the views of the right hon. Gentleman or, somehow, put the cow, sacred or otherwise, out to grass. That is the inevitable situation, because one cannot but link the requirements for civil defence with one's expectation of war.
Although the House accepts that the Opposition do not want this cut, since the Home Office is 'not exempt from the need for financial restraint it would be very interesting to know from the Opposition what they would like to cut from Home Office expenditure.
If they assume that this burden of saving public expenditure is to be spread, let me tell them that a saving of£20 million is equal to the annual cost of about 12,500 policemen, over one-third of the


total cost of the Child Care Service, and half the cost of the Prison Service. Those are the sort of cuts which would have to be faced if hon. Gentlemen recognised that the Home Office and my right hon. Friend would have their share.
I believe that the Government's policy is a realistic one. It recognises the need to maintain a basis for civil defence. It recognises the great spirit of service of volunteers, but it faces financial facts with

realism, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to do.

Mr. William Whitelaw: Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 234.

Division No. 80.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Edmund
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Irvine, Sir Arthur


Alldritt, Walter
Dickens, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)


Allen, Scholefield
Dobson, Ray
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Anderson, Donald
Dolg, Peter
Janner, Sir Barnett


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Jeger, George (Goole)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'namp;St. P'cras, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edeiman, Maurice
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W)


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
English, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Ennals, David
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ensor, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Judd, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew
Kelley, Richard


Binns, John
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Bishop, E. S.
Finch, Harold
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)


Blackburn, F.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Foley, Maurice
Ledger, Ron


Boston, Terence
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Boyden, James
Forrester, John
Lee, John (Reading)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fowler, Gerry
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Freeson, Reginald
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brooks, Edwin
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Or. A. D. D.
Gardner, Tony
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch amp; F'bury)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gregory, Arnold
McBride, Neil


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McCann, John


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, James


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacDermot, Niall


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Macdonald, A. H.


Coe, Denis
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McGuire, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherg[...]en)


Conlan, Bernard
Hamling, William
Mackie, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Haseldine, Norman
Mackintosh, John P.


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Cronin, John
Hazell, Bert
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Henig, Stanley
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hilton, W. S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hooley, Frank
Manuel, Archie


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mapp, Charles


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, James
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mellish, Robert


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mendelson, J. J.


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian




Miller, Dr. M. S.
Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Pursey, Cmdr, Harry
Tavern, Dick


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Randall, Harry
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Molloy, William
Rankin, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rees, Merlyn
Thornton, Ernest


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Reynolds, G. W.
Tinn, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Richard, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Eric G.


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Neal, Harold
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Newens, Stan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Norwood, Christopher
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)
Watkis, David (Co[...]tt)


Oakes, Gordon
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon amp; Radnor)


Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


O'Malley, Brian
Roebuck, Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Orbach, Maurice
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Whitaker, Ben


Oswald, Thomas
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ryan, John
Whitlock, William


Padley, Walter
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)


Paget, R. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Park, Trevor
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pentland, Norman
Snow, Julian
Woof, Robert


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wyatt, Woodrow


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Yates, Victor


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael



Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Stonehouse, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. loan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Corfield, F. V.
Gritnond, Rt. Hn. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Astor, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Crouch, David
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Baker, W. H. K.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Balniel, Lord
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bell, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hastings, Stephen


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hawkins, Paul


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. amp; Fhm)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hay, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Digby, Simon Wlngfleld
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Biffen, John
Doughty, Charles
Heseltine, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L,


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Black, Sir Cyril
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, J. E. B.


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Sir John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Body, Richard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carehalton)
Holland, Philip


Bossom, Sir Clive
Emery Peter
Hooson, Emlyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Braine, Bernard
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel
Hunt, John


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Fortescue, Tim
Iremonger, T. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, Paul
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, Namp;M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Campbell, Gordon
Glover, Sir Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carlisle, Mark
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kershaw, Anthony


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Channon, H. P. G.
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clark, Henry
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, Peter


Cooke, Robert
Grant, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lambton, Viscount


Cordle, John
Grieve, Percy
Lancaster, Col. C. G.







Lane, David
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tapsell, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Catticart)


Longden, Gilbert
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Loveys, W. H.
Peel, John
Teeling, Sir William


Lubbock, Eric
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


MacArthur, Ian
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


McMaster, Stanley
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Francis
Vickere, Dame Joan


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Quenneil, Miss J. M.
Wainwrigtvt, Richard (Colne Valley)


Marten, Neil
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walters, Dennis


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ridsdale, Julian
Weatherill, Bernard


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Webster, David


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wells, John (Makistone)


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
St. John-stevas, Norman
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas
Woodnutt, Mark


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Neave, Airey
Sharples, Richard
Wright, Esmond


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)
Wylie, N. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Nott, John
Stainton, Keith



Onslow, Cranley
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stodart, Anthony.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and




Mr. Jasper More.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 233.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ennals, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cant, R. B.
Ensor, David


Alldritt, Walter
Carmichael, Neil
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.


Archer, Peter
Coleman, Donald
Finch, Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Crawshaw, Richard
Foley, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cronin, John
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Barnes, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ford, Ben


Beaney, Alan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forrester, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Dalyell, Tam
Fowler, Gerry


Bence, Cyril
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Freeson, Reginald


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gardner, Tony


Binns, John
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Garrett, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ginsburg, David


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Courlay, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Boardman, H.
Delargy, Hugh
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Booth, Albert
Dell, Edmund
Gregory, Arnold


Boston, Terence
Dempsey, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boyden, James
Dickens, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bradley, Tom
Doig, Peter
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunn, James A.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brooks, Edwin
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dun woody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hamling, William


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Eadie, Alex
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, Bob(N'c'tlc-upon-Tyne,W.)
Edelman, Maurice
Hattersley, Roy


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch amp; F'bury)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Henig, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ellis, John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret




Hilton, W. S.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Hobden, Dinnis (Brighton, K'town)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Hooley, Frank
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Roebuck, Roy


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Manuel, Archie
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mapp, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Howarth, Robert (Balton, E.)
Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, E, (Cardiff, N.)


Hoy, James
Mason, Roy
Ryan, John


Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire. S.)
Mellish, Robert
Sheldon, Robert


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mikardo, Ian
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Irvine, Sir Arthur
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se amp; Spenb'gh)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Molloy, William
Skeffington, Arthur


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Slater, Joseph


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William


Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Snow, Julian


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'namp;St. P'cras, S.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Murray, Albert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, John


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Newens, Stan
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Norwood, Christopher
Swingier, Stephen


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Taverne, Dick


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomson, Rt. Hn, George


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Thornton, Ernest


Kelley, Richard
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Kenyon, Clifford
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter amp; Chatham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Urwin, T. W.


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Padley, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


Lawson, George
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Leadbitter Ted
Paget, R. T.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ledger, Ron
Palmer, Arthur
Wallace George


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Watkins David (Consett)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Park, Trevor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon amp;Radnor)


Lee, John (Reading)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Weitzman, David


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurence
Wellbeloved, James


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Peart, nt. Hn. Fred
Whitaker. Ben


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
White, Mrs. Eirene


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Whitlock, William


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Willliams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Clifford f Abertillery)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dlckson
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs Shirley (Hitchin)


McBride, Neil
Probert, Arthur
Williams, W T (warrington)


McCann, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Willis George (Edinburgh E)


MacColl, James
Randall, Harry
Wilson Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


MacDermot, Niall
Rankin, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Macdonald, A. H.
Rees, Merlyn
Winnick, David


McGuire, Michael
Reynolds, G. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Mackenzie, Cregor (Rutherglen)
Richard, Ivor
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mackie, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Yates, Victor


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Gorormy (Caernarvon)



McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Mr. Joseph Harper and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cordle, John


Astor, John
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Corfield, F. V.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n amp; M'd'n)
Braine, Bernard
Costain, A. P.


Awdry, Daniel
Brewis, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Baker, W. H. K.
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Crouch, David


Balniel, Lord
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Crowder, F. P.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Paul
Currie, G. B. H.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,Namp;M)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Dance, James


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bullus, Sir Eric
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. amp; Fhm)
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)


Berry, Hn, Anthony
Campbell, Gordon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Doughty, Charles


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cary, Sir Robert
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Black, Sir Cyril
Channon, H. P. G.
Drayson, G. B.


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Henry
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Body, Richard
Cooke, Robert
Eden, Sir John







Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Farr, John
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, Julian


Fisher, Nigel
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fortescue, Tim
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Foster, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony


Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Longden, Gilbert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Loveys, W. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lubbock, Eric
Scott, Nicholas


Glover, Sir Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott-Hopkins, James


Glyn, Sir Richard
MacArthur, Ian
Sharples, Richard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurioe (Farrtham)
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grant, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Stodart, Anthony.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Sids)


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, sir William


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Temple, John M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Montgomey, Fergus
Tilney, John


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hastings Stephen
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Van Straubenzee, W R


Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt Hn Sir John


Hay, John
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wainwright, Richard (Cons Valley)


Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Higgins, Terence L.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wall, Patrick


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walters, Dennis


Hill, J. E. B.
Nott, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Webster, David


Hooson, Emlyn
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hornby, Richard
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Woodnutt, Mark


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Peyton, John
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wright, Esmond


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylie, N. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Rafton
Younger, Hn. Georgs


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pym, Francis
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved,

That this House expresses its appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service for their services to the cause of Civil Defence, and while

recognising the great value of the contribution made by the voluntary services, notes with approval that the Government, having regard to the economic and international situation, have decided to make a reduction in the level of Civil Defence.

AYRSHIRE POLICE (AMALGAMATION) ORDER

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I beg to move.
That this House, while approving of the Secretary of State for Scotland's proposal to amalgamate the police forces in Ayrshire, urgently calls upon him to reconsider the provision that the treasurer shall be the town chamberlain of Ayr, contrary to the views of the county council of Ayr and the burgh of Kilmarnock, who take the view that the treasurer's duties, including the payment of the police, could be carried out with greater economy and efficiency at the Ayr County Buildings where there is an organisation, a staff and other facilities for doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) support me in the Motion. The hon. Member for Bute and Ayrshire has, unfortunately, been called abroad, otherwise he would have been here tonight.
There are three police forces in Ayrshire—the County of Ayr Police Force, the Burgh of Kilmarnock Police Force, and the Burgh of Ayr Police Force. Ayr County Council has since 1946 been completely in favour of the amalgamation of the three forces. So has the Burgh of Kilmarnock. Ayr Burgh Council has strongly opposed amalgamation—first, in 1946, when it refused to join the County Council and Kilmarnock Burgh Council in a voluntary scheme for amalgamation; secondly, in 1948, when it objected to the Secretary of State's proposals for amalgamation and successfully raised an action in the Court of Session on a matter of procedure; and finally, in 1966 when it again refused to amalgamate voluntarily.
Between then and now there have been letters between the Scottish Office and the three police authorities. On 8th March, 1967, Ayr County Council received a letter from the Scottish Home and Health Department noting that the County Council had agreed in principle to the amalgamation, but intimating that Ayr Town Council was not willing to join the County Council and Kilmarnock Town Council in the preparation of an amalgamation scheme under the voluntary provisions of Section 17 of the 1956 Act. The letter also stated that the Secretary

of State was satisfied that, in the interests of efficiency, the three forces should be amalgamated and he therefore proposed to make an amalgamation scheme.
Amalgamation is not the difficulty today. This hurdle has at last been surmounted, although not so satisfactorily as we would have liked, because of the opposition of Ayr burgh. However, that hurdle has been surmounted and it is what would appear to be a lesser matter concerning the treasurership of the new authority which is the bone of contention.
Ayr County Council and Kilmarnock burgh are agreed that the treasurer of the new police authority should be the County Treasurer. On 19th April, 1967, a letter received from the Scottish Home and Health Department stated that as no voluntary scheme for amalgamation had been submitted to the Scottish Home and Health Department under Section 17 of the 1956 Act as amended, the Secretary of State proposed to make a compulsory amalgamation scheme under Section 18 of the Act. The letter enclosed, in pursuance of Section 17, a copy of the proposed scheme and asked for any objections by the County Council to the scheme or any feature of the scheme.
On 29th June, 1967, a letter was sent by the County Council to the Scottish Home and Health Department forwarding the County Council's observations on the terms of the proposed scheme. In connection with paragraph 18 of the proposed scheme the letter said:
For economic reasons and administrative convenience, the Council are of the opinion that the County Treasurer should be the Treasurer to the Joint Committee. The Treasurer's Department has readily available the facilities to absorb the additional work involved in taking over financial responsibility for the two Burgh Forces in addition to the County Police Force, particularly in view of the recent installation of a computer which it is intended will take over in due course much of the financial work arising from the administration of the police service.
One would readily agree, if one were unbiased, that the County Council in the large administrative buildings which are situated in Ayr is very well equipped to do this job.
Following that letter there was no reply, but on the 24th October, 1967, there was a letter received from the Scottish Home and Health Department


referring again to the proposed Ayrshire Police Amalgamation Scheme, 1967, and intimating, as there were no objections to the scheme outstanding, despite the letter that had been received, the Secretary of State intended to make the proposed scheme by Order as provided for in Section 18 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956.
On the 17th November, there was a letter sent to the Scottish Home and Health Department from the County Council expressing the County Council's disappointment at the Department's handling of the matter and making further representations about the post of treasurer. There were letters sent on that date also to each of the five Ayrshire Members of Parliament, asking for their support in the rejection of the Order in its present form, with the object of securing the necessary amendment to Article 19—that was embodying the treasurership of the scheme—to allow for the appointment of the county treasurer as treasurer of the proposed joint committee.
The County Council is quite satisfied that, in the interests of all concerned, the county treasurer should be the treasurer of the proposed joint committee for very obvious reasons, which they reiterated and amplified in a brief they sent to the five Ayrshire M.P.s on the situation. This is as follows:
A financial department, the size of the County Treasurer's Department, can more readily and more economically absorb the additional work arising from the merging of the Forces of Ayr and Kilmarnock, with an establishment of 112 uniformed personnel and 18 civilians, and 119 uniformed personnel and 21 civilians, respectively, with the County Police Force which has an authorised establishment of 378 uniformed personnel and 85 civilians. In fact, the County Treasurer has indicated that he can take over the additional duties with possibly one additional assistant only and no increase in accommodation, particularly in view of the recent installation of a computer which it was intended would take over in due course much of the financial work connected with the administration of the police service.
In addition, discussions were at that time taking place of a proposal for the compilation of crime, accident and other County police statistics on the County Council's computer. The County Treasurer's Department already carry out the financial work arising from the Joint Police Wireless Scheme which operates on a County basis.

It would seem that, at a time when local authority and central government expenditure is being scrutinised to achieve savings wherever possible, the administration of the financial duties, arising from the new combined area should be carried out by the most economic means possible.
I could quote some more, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) hope to put forward their points of view. On the facts before us, I do not think that we shall find the hon. Member for Ayr too unsympathetic to the case I am trying to put.
The Motion explains exactly what we want. I do not want to bring forward any further reasons, and I think that I have made a good case arising from the brief sent to me. It is wrong for the Scottish Office to force additional expenditure on the three local authorities by appointing the burgh chamberlain of Ayr as treasurer to the joint police committee when the treasurer of the Ayr County Council could carry out the duties much more economically.
The Government are at present exhorting all local authorities to conserve capital expenditure as much as possible, and to be economical in their work involving current expenditure. If they mean those pleas to the local authorities, they should heed the uneconomical decision they have taken about the appointment of the treasurer for the new body. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Order contained the provisions about the appointment of officials. There may be some reason, legal or otherwise, but it seems to me that it would have been sound common sense and good reasoning to bring forward the order with the power Li it for the newly constituted body to make the appointment itself, with its knowledge of the area and the people who would have applied and been suitable for the job.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) for the reasoned and careful way he presented the argument. I have no dispute with him on the facts as he presented them.
I am perhaps in the fortunate position that I can approach the question from a totally impartial point of view, in that I represent almost exactly equally part


of the county of Ayr and the burgh of Ayr. I have been very carefully into the matter, which has been about for a very long time, and have carefully examined both sides of the argument. I am very glad to have an opportunity to make a few comments on the general question.
It must be seen against the background of the long-standing question in Ayrshire whether the three police forces should be amalgamated. All three authorities—Kilmarnock burgh, Ayr county and Ayr burgh—very rightly have a high opinion of their police forces. Each force is extremely fine in its way, and it is right for the people concerned to be very proud of them. The crime rate and record of detection of crime in Ayrshire are fortunately very good. There is no doubt that this is the result of good police work by the police authorities concerned.
In every year since I have been Member for the division, Ayre burgh police have been able to produce an annual report showing a decrease in the amount of crime in their area. That is something that not so many authorities can claim. So it is not surprising that there is genuine local pride in the local forces and that there has been considerable resistance over the years to the idea of amalgamating them into one.
That brings us to the current situation. It has been decided under the Police (Scotland) Act to amalgamate these forces. Indeed, this Order has already gone through and I understand that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) may cover that point. I want to concentrate on the crucial question as I see it.
First, to what extent were the debates of the Ayr County Council about the wisdom of separating the post of clerk to the new authority and the treasurership properly aired early on in the discussions of the form of amalgamation? The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has quoted the letter of 29th June sent to the Scottish Home and Health Department forwarding the County Council's observations on the terms of the proposed scheme. He pointed out that in the letter the County Council made the point of suggesting that the two posts should be within he same authority.
What conversations or discussions or dialogue were there between 29th June and 24th October, when the final letter came from the Department and which has also been quoted? It would be helpful to those who have misgivings if we could know what went on between these two dates and whether a genuine case was made by the County Council. If so, I hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain how he came to his apparently firm decision of 24th October that the scheme as in the Order should go through.
I must give it as my opinion, for what it is worth, that this Motion should not be accepted, and I am sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman in this respect. It is fair to say that any going back at this stage, even if that were possible—and I presume some method, however complicated, could be found—would put back the amalgamation which I think it is fair to say all three forces are itching to get on with. Even those who may have had reservations about it—and there were many of them—feel that, in the interest of the members of the forces and all the people concerned, it is necessary to know where they stand and to get on with the job of making their excellent forces into one outstanding force. So my first reason for not accepting the Motion is that it is too late to go back and we should recognise that position.
Secondly, I cannot really agree, although on the surface it looks good sense, that in practice the proposed arrangement will turn out to be more expensive than the arrangement suggested of having both officials in the same authority. To have them -both under one roof would appear to be cheaper, but, having looked into the likely details of how this will work, although there may be minor adjustments—there is obviously a little more distance between where the two gentlemen will work, and so on—I believe there is not a case for saying that there will be a lot of extra expense as a result of this arrangement.
My third point brings me back to where I began. It has been a matter of concern to all three authorities that they were to lose their independent and highly valued police forces. There is surely something to be said, even at the expense of a little speed and efficiency, for an arrangement which will give everyone


concerned the feeling that they are taking part in a genuine partnership in forming the new joint police force.
The proposed arrangement will give the people in Ayr burgh, who have been most concerned about losing their police force, of which they are so justly proud, a feeling that the new authority is a real part of them. This will help to get the new authority off to a good start. There is no question of criticism of the people involved. All the officers are of the very highest standing and all called upon to act in any capacity would do their work outstandingly well. We have passed the point where this can be rescinded. The most important thing, from the point of view of the policeman on the beat, is to get on with the job and make these three police authorities into one of the finest forces in Scotland, which I confidently expect it will be.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I apologise to the House for raising this matter at such a late stage during a week when we have been occupied with other important business. It has been an exacting time. I will not labour the objection of the Ayr County Council to the one phrase in this Order. I agree with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that the main purpose of the Order has the approval of every sensible person in Ayrshire. We wish the amalgamated police force every success and hope that it will be an efficient force in carrying out its duties, especially on a Saturday night, when the hon. Gentleman is the most popular person in Ayrshire.
This Prayer has been signed by two Labour Members and a Conservative, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). This is the first time in history that this holy trinity has prayed together. We represent the people of Ayrshire and not the hon. Member for Ayr. He may represent the burgh of Ayr, but the outer areas and the landward areas of his constituency, including the burgh of Prestwick, are now included in the County of Ayr.
It is true to say that we represent the majority of the people of Ayrshire, and that Ayrshire County Council is the most important body. What we disagree with

is the paying of the police by Ayr burgh. When the amalgamation was effected, it should have been done efficiently and the Secretary of State should have made a good job of it. Unfortunately he has not, and, as he is also an Ayrshire Member, he will have to pay extra on his rates, to some extent, as a result of this lapse in allowing this function of paying the police to operate in another building. It is obvious, from the point of view of organisation of the staff, that this new police force should be in one building under one authority.
We have reason to criticise the way in which this matter has been handled by the authorities in the House. As soon as the Order was placed on the Table, the trinity—the three of us—proceeded with our Prayer. We waited patiently for this matter to be brought before the House for consideration before becoming operative. Unfortunately, due to some mysterious process, the Order was not debated. The 40 days—a matter which you, Sir Eric, will understand—lapsed on Sunday, so the Order became operative before we had an opportunity of exercising our rights. That is all wrong, and I hope that this flaw in our machinery will be noted.
When a county council asks its Members to take up a matter in Parliament and those Members take the appropriate action, an opportunity should be given for debate before it is finally decided. But this has been decided by diktat, perhaps not premeditated, by the Secretary of State for Scotland who, on reading these speeches, will realise that an error has been made.
I do not know how that error is to be rectified. I do not know whether the Ayr Town Council will take up an intransigent attitude towards what is essentially a reasonable proposal for administration, because the people living in the burgh of Ayr have everything to gain by having an efficiently administrated police force. Unfortunately, running a police force in one building and paying it in another is not conducive to efficiency.
It is difficult for me to think how it can be done as the Order has been passed by this House without our consent, but I hope that some way may be found to remedy this injustice so that we get an


efficient police force in the county of Ayr.

10.53 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I apologise for my appearance tonight, but I have no intention of turning a Nelson eye on the circumstances we are debating.
We all agree that we would like to see an efficient police force operating within the County of Ayr. Therefore, although I will make some comments about the past, for the future we want to examine the position as it stands.
It is not for me to say anything about the authorities of the House or the procedures, although, looking back on the Act that gave certain powers to the Secretary of State concerning police amalgamation, perhaps there could be improvements. If we had to do it all over again I suppose that we could make improvements in the light of what we have learned.
Looking at the position as it stands, we would in the long run tend to disrupt the harmony, albeit not perfect, which has been echoed tonight, by having further public inquiries and further representations which I am assured would be made. In addition, I am not convinced that the marginal loss of efficiency, if it is proven, would not be more than counterbalanced by the losses that we would sustain by reopening the whole question.
Ayr burgh has gone to considerable expense on the assumption that this Order would go through, as it has, and would not be revoked or modified in any way. We have to put this in the scales against the allegations which the county is making—and it has been a well argued case—about the difficulty of operating the system with the treasureship of the committee being in the hands of the burgh, as distinct from the county, where the county clerk is also the clerk of the Committee.

Mr. Manuel: This is news to me, but I accept it as gospel. My hon. Friend said that Ayr burgh had gone to considerable expense to adapt itself to the change. I do not: know whether he is referring to buildings. He must be, because I do not think that the burgh had the facilities before. Do I take it that, despite the

possibility of a Prayer, the Scottish Office endorsed and authorised expenditure by Ayr burgh for this purpose? If it did, it was quite wrong.

Dr. Mabon: Perhaps I had better start at the beginning. I started with the present position, and was trying to see what we could do for the future.
We all recognise—and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said this—that this is not a county takeover. It is a combination of the three police authorities, and it is equitable, as has been the case elsewhere, that the so-called fruits of office should, as far as possible, be shared among the authorities, provided that this arrangement does not unduly affect efficiency.
In the case of Perth and Kinross, there is an amalgamation scheme under which there is a similar division of office to that under this Order.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is a bad example.

Dr. Mabon: It may be, but I could venture the opinion—and it is purely my opinion, not that of the Secretary of State—that Perth and Kinross get on better together than do Ayr burgh and the county. But that is, of course, a question of degree, because they both get on quite well in different ways. A pattern for this arrangement is in existence. The Secretary of State cannot lay down that this is a wrong pattern, and therefore disqualify it from being used in an Order such as this.
The other thing—and this is the important point to the discussion—is that we have a long history—I shall not go over it—of the demand to have a united force. It is the case that the proposed amalgamation scheme, after discussion with the three authorities, was sent to the various authorities, including the county clerk, on 19th April. After a considerable time, and quite rightly, the county clerk, on the instructions of his authority, wrote to the Secretary of State on 29th June saying that the County Council was not opposed in principle to the proposed amalgamation, but it wished to make certain observations and representations concerning certain articles in the scheme. One of these points—but it was not the sole one—was the central one that we are


discussing, namely, that the county treasurer ought to be the treasurer of the joint committee.
The various observations and representations made by the county were put to both Ayr burgh and Kilmarnock with the intention, once the observations had been commented upon by these two authorities, that the Secretary of State would then consider amending the scheme where there was agreement among the three authorities concerned. I am happy to report—and no one dissents from this—that Kilmarnock, the burgh of Ayr, and the county of Ayr, agreed on all matters of substance in the Order, except this one point.
The interesting thing to note is that, Ayr burgh having made it clear on 28th September that it could agree with everything except this one point of substance, the matter remained like that, and no formal objection had been made. If a formal objection had been made under the Act, there would have had to have been a public inquiry. By the time Ayr County Council responded on this point, the time had long since passed when, under Statute, it was possible to make an objection. Ayr County Council were formally informed of the position by the Secretary of State on 24th October, 1967, and it was pointed out that amendments to the proposed scheme were those that had been agreed by the three authorities, those which clarified the meaning but did not alter the intent, and those rendered necessary by the passage of time and the passage of new legislation.
The point of objection which remained was the point of substance which the Secretary of State could do nothing about in the absence of formal objection by Ayr County Council. Perhaps we should have made the procedures tighter, more precise and better known to all the authorities concerned. They could have invoked their rights at different times. This was open to Ayr County Council, but they did not exercise their right at any time, and while I would not completely blame them, nevertheless they are in the last resort the responsible authority.
Ayr borough has spent money, some £3,200, I am told, on the calculating machine required. We have some know

ledge of what is proposed by the treasurer of the Joint Committee. He is an official of considerable ability and will do his best to ensure that he discharges his office and responsibility to the committee economically as he can. His relations with the clerk to the committee are good, and I think that every attempt will be made by officials concerned to make the scheme work.

Mr. Younger: May I come back to one small point. Was it known to his Department, to the County Council and the other authorities, that the point at issue was whether the clerk and treasurer should be in the same building? What efforts were made in the time between 19th April, 1967, and 24th October, 1967, to reconcile this? I understand that the letters to the Councils from the Secretary of State asking for observations made no request for the County Council's observations on whatever the Town Council said in reply. I do not know if this is correct or not, but would it not have been helpful to have had the County Council's observations at this stage, thus helping to crystallise views?

Dr. Mabon: I think this is the central point, and if all the parties concerned had been aware of the timetable and when they could invoke their rights of objection, we would not have been discussing this tonight. It would have been resolved in some other way. Sincere efforts were made to get a concensus of opinion, but I do not think one can get 100 per cent, agreement in a case like this. This is perhaps where misunderstanding has arisen, to be fair to the county. But, to be fair to the Secretary of State, the time having passed when formal objection could be heard, he could do no more honourably than to hear the three authorities. If a Kilmarnock burgh official had been proposed as the Treasurer, the argument about efficiency would have been formidable, because then the two officers would have been in burghs some miles apart, but in this case the two officers are adjacent, admittedly in two different buildings, but in the same town.
It is right that this should have been aired. I hope that, in any further steps towards police amalgamation, all the parties will know their rights and the


timetable involved. Nevertheless, it would now be wise if all those concerned agreed to make the best of the situation. We will not lose much on the efficiency argument. Certainly everyone should try to get over it. Irrespective of the different views about the Order, like all hon. Members I wish the amalgamated force every success. I am sure that it will be in the best tradition of Ayrshire forces, which have a high record and are well respected in Scotland.

Question put and negatived.

Mr. DESMOND FRANCIS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: It is a long tradition that hon. Members should draw attention to injustice or outrage done to citizens, and this concern for the rights of ordinary men and women has never stopped short of the boundaries of the United Kingdom. The case I wish to present is somewhat unusual, since it concerns a British subject who has been arbitrarily and unlawfully robbed of her husband, who is not, incidentally, a United Kingdom citizen. I will allow time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) to speak, and I am glad to know that he wishes to support me.
In 1965, a young English woman, Mary Hair, went out to Zambia to work as a school teacher. Secondary schools in Zambia are staffed not only by local people but by many different races, and people from England are very welcome. While she was there, she met and, early in 1967 married, a young South Africa teacher of Asian origin, Mr. Des Francis. They lived and worked in Livingstone, where they had a wide circle of friends among people of all races. Mr. Frances was particularly respected for his youth club work supported by local churches.
Although his forefathers came from India, Des Francis is South African. South Africa is his mother country and Afrikaans his mother tongue. He holds a current valid South African passport, but he realised that when he married an Englishwoman he and his wife could not

return to South Africa because of that country's racial laws. So they planned to come to England when the contract with the Zambian Government ended. Mr. Francis had received his higher education in England.
Last Christmas, the last long school holiday which they would spend in Zambia, he invited his mother and sisters from Johannesburg to join him and his wife as this would be their last opportunity to meet his wife and infant son before they left for England. They came and the whole family spent a happy Christmas and New Year together.
On Tuesday, 2nd January, Mr. and Mrs. Francis drove across the border from Zambia into Rhodesia at Victoria Falls. They were going to inquire about the times of trains travelling south, as Mr. Francis' relatives intended to return to South Africa later that week. The Rhodesian town of Victoria Falls is only five miles from Livingstone and I gather that it was a perfectly normal practice for people to book seats and catch the train going south from the Rhodesian side of the border.
During the time that they lived in Livingstone, Mr. and Mrs. Francis both together and individually, often crossed the border without any difficulties.
On this occasion, however, they were immediately detained on the Rhodesian side and were questioned separately by the Rhodesian police. After three hours, Mrs. Francis was allowed to return to Zambia but without the car, which was seized by the police. She was told that her husband was being held for further questioning and that she should return the following day. She did so and was again questioned at length, mainly about her husband's activities and friends. She was allowed to see him briefly. Their car was returned to her and she was sent back to Livingstone. The Rhodesian police gave no indication what charges, if any, they intended to bring against her husband.
For the next couple of days Mrs. Francis maintained contact by phone with the Victoria Falls police station. She was told that her husband was still required for questioning. On the following Saturday the police told her that her husband was no longer in Victoria Falls


but had been sent to Bulawayo "for further questioning". A few days later she was able to phone the police in Bulawayo. They confirmed that her husband was there and told her that he was in good health. They said, however, that they could not allow him to see a lawyer or speak to anyone as he was being held incommunicado.
In the mean time, Mrs. Francis had been in touch with a lawyer in Livingstone who advised her that as her husband had not broken any Rhodesian law, he might be held for questioning for up to 30 days, but he would then be returned to Zambia. In fact, he was not returned to Zambia. He was deported to South Africa on 19th January. He was sent by the Rhodesian police to the South African authorities and transferred from Bulawayo to Pretoria. News of this reached his friends via the B.B.C. news. I understand that he is being threatened with proceedings under the notorious 1967 Terrorism Act which has been roundly condemned for the sweeping and retrospective powers it confers upon the South African authorities.
I must stress that Mr. Francis was in Zambia perfectly legally. His South African passport was completely in order. There are, in fact, a good many South Africans of all races in Zambia with the full knowledge and approval of their Government, who are loyal citizens of their own country. My information is that Mr. Francis is a quiet man who condemns violence and, although by his marriage he has demonstrated that he does not see eye to eye with the racial theories of the South African Government, he was not in any way a supporter of terrorist activities.
His wife, who is a British citizen, and entitled to the support and protection of the British Government, is now left without means and with a baby to care for and a home to maintain. Worse than this is the nagging psychological torment about what may happen to her husband, whether he will be punished for marrying a European wife, whether he will be ill-treated while in custody, on what charges he will be tried, or if indeed he will be tried at all, or simply held for months or years without any charges being preferred against him.
It is not many months ago that public opinion in this country was gravely disturbed, and rightly, by the kidnapping of two British pilots and their unlawful detention in Algeria. The whole civilised world recognises that it is outrageous that civilians going peaceably about their ordinary business should be seized, interrogated, subjected to indignities and arrest without any pretence of due process of law nor the slightest allegation of any criminal act.
The seizure of the husband of Mrs. Francis, who herself is entitled to the full protection of the British Government, is an outrage compounded by the fact that it could only be accomplished by the direct connivance of the illegal regime in Rhodesia. It must be clear to the Government of South Africa that the regime in Rhodesia is illegal, that the sole lawful Government of the territory of Rhodesia is the Government of the United Kingdom. It follows that any conspiracy or connivance with the Rhodesian regime must be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as a hostile and unfriendly act. Certainly it is difficult to see how Her Majesty's Government can in any way condone the calculated kidnapping of the husband of a British citizen. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will make it clear beyond any doubt that they regard this incident as an outrage to the well-being of Mrs. Francis and will exert every possible pressure upon the South African authorities to induce them to restore Mr. Francis to his wife and baby.
Amid all the terror and hatred which have been set up throughout Southern Africa by the racial hatreds which grow deeper and more difficult to reconcile as the years go by, it may seem trifling and insignificant to draw attention to the plight of one solitary Englishwoman and her child. Nevertheless, I believe it is right to do so. Standards of civilised behaviour are measured by the way in which a country treats the weakest and most vulnerable of its citizens. By releasing Mr. Francis and restoring him to his wife and baby son, the Government of South Africa could demonstrate that they are not wholly unmindful of those standards. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will use their good offices to persuade them to this end.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for leaving me ample lime. I am glad that he has raised this matter and I support what he said.
This very sad case was brought to my notice recently by several of my constituents. I also understand that it was the subject of a strong resolution passed last week by the Cambridge Union. One constituent who has written to me is a personal friend of Mr. Francis and shared his house with him for eight months in Zambia in 1965.
As for the facts, my information corroborates absolutely what the hon. Member for Heeley said. It is particularly poignant that the initial detention of Mr. Francis occurred when he was simply checking train times for the return of his family to South Africa. Earlier this month I took the matter up with the Foreign Office, and I am grateful for the helpful reply I have now received from the Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office, who is replying to this debate. It is at least some relief to learn from our information from South Africa that Mr. Francis is in good health. I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that our High Commission in Lusaka will continue to give Mrs. Francis, as a United Kingdom citizen, whatever help they can.
I appreciate that it is not easy for the Government to make formal representations to the South African Government in this matter because Mr. Francis is a citizen of South Africa. However, is it not possible for our Embassy there to make stronger representations, informally, in view of the intense feelings which this case is arousing here? At a time when there have been some signs of a thaw in South Africa's relations with the rest of the world, a small gesture by that country in this case would do a great deal to help the process. At the very least, could not South Africa give the lawyers access to Mr. Francis, and then let him either be released, which would be ideal, or brought to trial speedily?
There have been fears that Mr. Francis, as a person of Indian origin who married a white woman, might now be prosecuted in South Africa under the Immorality Act. Can the Minister confirm what a

Government spokesman said in another place on 29th January, that there is little likelihood of proceedings being taken against him under that Act?
I hope that the Government will exercise all their ingenuity to secure the early release of Mr. Francis and his reuniting with his wife.

11.19 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) have rightly brought to the attention of the House a disturbing and, indeed, tragic case, about which no one with any feeling of compassion can fail to be disturbed.
The facts are as my hon. Friend has outlined them. I am glad to tell the House that the British High Commission in Zambia is in regular touch with Mrs. Francis. We have explained fully the limitations on the powers of Her Majesty's Government in this case. However, I wish to say at the outset, in public, how deeply the Government sympathise with Mrs. Francis in the harsh circumstances of this event. We sympathise with her anxiety and distress. Mrs. Francis has been told that if there is any help that we can give her personally, we will be glad to do so. She has replied to the High Commissioner that she is not financially distressed, having taken her husband's job as a teacher in Livingstone, but she will of course keep in touch with the High Commission and if this situation changes the High Commissioner will deal with her case with sympathy and understanding.
Mr. Francis, as my hon. Friend reminded us, is a citizen of South Africa. That very fact makes it impossible for us to have any right of interference on a consular level about a citizen of South Africa. We understand that he is at present being held under the South African Terrorism Act. I confirm that our knowledge is that he is in good health. I regret to say that his lawyers have not so far been permitted to see him. The circumstances under which Mr. Francis was detained in Rhodesia we regard as illegal. It was an illegal detention. The authorities there ought to feel ashamed of the meanness and the cruelty of the course of action which they pursued. It


is not possible for us to forecast what will happen to Mr. Francis, but I assure my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cambridge that we have no reason to believe that charges will be preferred against him under the South African laws concerning marriage and for the fact that he, being an Indian, married a European. It is a strange world where the State tries to tell people whom they should marry.
My hon. ' Friend also asked about representations to the South African Government. I can assure him that we are informally keeping in touch with the South African authorities on behalf of Mrs. Francis, who is a British citizen. We are making arrangements for a letter from Mrs. Francis to be conveyed to her husband. As soon as his detention was originally brought to our notice, our residual mission in Salisbury made contact with the lawyers retained for her husband. There was no further action under present circumstances which we could have taken in Rhodesia to remedy the illegal detention. The House knows our physical limitations about controlling the acts of discrimination and other acts that are at present conducted in

Rhodesia. Equally, we could not prevent the deportation of Mr. Francis to South Africa. The fact is that he is there; he is detained and my hon. Friend maintains that he is likely to be charged under the Terrorism Act. I do not know. I presume that if they act against him it is likely to be under that Measure. I can only tell the House that I share the sense of dismay and disgust which decent people are bound to feel at the action of Rhodesians in this matter. But we are maintaining our contact informally with the South African authorities, and that is all that we can do in this matter. If Mr. Francis were our citizen, we could be more forthright, but he is their citizen.
Therefore, if my words reach the ears of Mrs. Francis, as I trust they will, I can assure her, as I assure hon. Members tonight, that to the maximum of our ability we are eager and anxious to help. What limited powers we have will be used in the interests of humanity in this case.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.—[Mr. McCann.]

Sitting suspended at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock.